Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Dover Harbour Bill [Lords],

Oxford Extension Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (Trolley Vehicles, etc.) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Southampton Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Halifax, in the room of the right hon. John Henry Whitley (Manor of Northstead).—(Sir R. Hutchison.)

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (COMMUNIST PRISONERS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received information that several persons have recently been accused in Palestine of membership of an illegal association, and have been sentenced to deportation; whether he is aware that these persons asked that they should be treated as political offenders; that they went on hunger strike and are still on hunger strike; that three of them were flogged; and whether he now has any information to communicate to the House on the subject

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I have now received a report from the High Commissioner. On May 29th three militant Communists serving sentences of 30, 50 and 100 days respectively for taking part in illegal assemblies, refused to return to their cells after exercise. One of them threw a stone and hit the warder and the other two then joined with the first in attempting to wrench the warder's baton from his hand. They were overpowered and subsequently charged with refusing to obey an order and with using violence against a prison officer, and, being found guilty by the Superintendent of the Prison, they were punished, in accord-
ance with Prison Regulations, by five days' solitary confinement and 12 lashes. These prisoners had been recommended by the Court for deportation, and the recommendation will be carried out in due course. There are nine other Jewish Communist prisoners in the prison who have caused considerable trouble to the prison authorities by constant violence and disobedience to orders and who for some days refused to take food. I do not know whether they asked to be treated as political offenders. Flogging is a legal punishment for offences of violence in prison, and the High Commissioner is satisfied that this punishment was properly awarded and administered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why were these men imprisoned? Was it because they were Communists?

Mr. AMERY: No. I have given the answer. It was for taking part in an illegal assembly.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But is it a crime in Palestine to be a member of the Communist or any other political party?

Mr. AMERY: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. OLIVER: What evidence has the right hon. Gentleman that these men were Communists?

Mr. AMERY: After all, in all these matters of administration, the evidence is taken by the Government on the spot, and they were satisfied that these men were taking part in an illegal assembly.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the illegal association referred to is the Communist party?

Mr. AMERY: No.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Where are these men going to be deported to?

Mr. AMERY: Presumably to their country of origin.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (NATIVE LAND TRUST BILL).

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what
measures are envisaged, under Clause 7 of the Kenya Native Land Trust Bill, to ascertain the consent of the natives concerned where such consent is required before the leasing of areas in the native reserves to Europeans; the composition of the native councils to which reference is made in the first of the proposed amendments; and how far they are representative of the native population?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 21st June to the hon. Member for Fins-bury (Mr. Gillett).

Mr. BAKER: Was not the earlier reply to this request for information merely a statement that discussion was being temporarily postponed?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, but as the whole matter has been postponed for consideration, I could not very well answer the detailed points that the hon. Member has put.

Mr. WELLOCK: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total amount of land now in the possession of the white population of Kenya; the dates on which the principal transferences were made; the amount of land involved in each; and what proportion this forms of the total fertile land of Kenya?

Mr. AMERY: The areas of grants of land in Kenya registered in recent years are as follow:







Acres.


1923
…
…
…
…
404,267


1924
…
…
…
…
364,410


1925
…
…
…
…
317,258


1926
…
…
…
…
332,684


These figures do not show what proportion of the grants were made to Europeans, nor do they make allowance for surrenders; but the total area alienated at the 31st December, 1926, was 6,005,774 acres. As regards land under occupation by Europeans, the total amount, according to the Kenya Agricultural Census for the year ended 31st July, 1927, was 4,737,920 acres. I am not in a position to supply the detailed information asked for in the second and third parts of the question. I cannot say what percentage of the total land area of Kenya could properly be classed as fertile, but the area alienated at the 31st December, 1926, was approximately 4 per cent. of the total land area.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much land of the native reserves now occupied by natives it is proposed to alienate or which will be available for European settlement under the Native Land Trust Bill now under discussion in Kenya Colony; and where this land is situated?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 21st June to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any correspondence has passed between his office and the Government of Kenya Colony as to the Native Land Trust Bill which that Government is understood to be introducing during this month; and, if so, whether a copy of such papers may be placed in the Library of the House?

Mr. AMERY: Correspondence has passed, and is still passing, between the Governor of Kenya and myself in regard to the Native Land Trust Bill which was recently introduced into the Legislative Council in Kenya. I will consider when the correspondence is complete what part, if any, of it can be published.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to let us have some of this correspondence before his Estimates come up for discussion this year?

Mr. AMERY: I think that I must wait until the correspondence is complete, but I will consider the suggestion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman prepare some statement on the matter?

Mr. AMERY: I will consider that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WEST INDIES (ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. MORRIS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that there are now seven governors for a community of 2,000,000 people in the British West Indies, he will consider the desirability of one governor-general being appointed for all the islands and
possessions in that area, with a senate house composed of representatives from each colony?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid I could not deal in reply to a question with all the practical obstacles to any scheme of West Indian federation, but I might refer the hon. Member to the Report of Lord Irwin (then Mr. Wood) on his visit to the West Indies (Cmd. 1679).

Commander BELLAIRS: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the successful economies effected in both large cities and small towns in America by the substitution of a business director for the local government, and in order to relieve the present financial stress, he will take steps to enable any of the small island communities of the West Indies to substitute this system for the present governments presided over by governors or administrators?

Mr. AMERY: I am not aware of a desire in any of the West Indian Islands for the abolition of representative institutions and the substitution for the present Governors of business men without Colonial administrative experience.

Commander BELLAIRS: Would it not be possible to have that system should the Islands express a desire to have it, seeing that it has been successful in great cities like Cleveland, Ohio, with a population bigger than the whole of the West Indies?

Mr. AMERY: Such cities may have a large population, but the functions of a municipality are much more limited than those of a Colonial Government. In any case, the question is purely hypothetical.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN NIGERIA (EDUCATION).

Mr. MORRIS: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will publish the Report presented by the Rev. A. G. Fraser, head of the Government school at Achimota, upon the condition of education in Northern Nigeria?

Mr. AMERY: Mr. Fraser visited Nigeria at the request of the Governor of that Colony, and embodied his impressions in a Memorandum, which he sent to Sir Graeme Thomson. It is not proposed to publish the document, which was not an official report.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EAST AFRICA (WIRELESS COMMUNICATION).

Miss WILKINSON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the unsatisfactory telegraphic facilities in British East Africa, the difficulties of maintaining telegraph wires, and consequent delay in urgent telegrams, he will arrange for a system of wireless stations which will enable distant posts and travellers to maintain adequate communication and thus add to the safety of life and of travel in these areas?

Mr. AMERY: I understand that the Kenya and Uganda Post and Telegraph Department have had under consideration the possibility of making use of wireless telegraphy for internal communications, but I have had no information to suggest that the present telegraphic services are unsatisfactory.

Miss WILKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Italian Government maintain a very good service of wireless communication in their part of Africa, and that travel in the North of Africa is much safer than in British East Africa; and is he aware that a good many complaints have been lodged, not only about the difficulty of sending telegrams, but at the fact that telegrams arrive mostly about 10 days after being sent?

Mr. AMERY: It depends upon the district. Obviously, in a great new country like East Africa, settlers cannot expect all the facilities that exist in the London district. As regards the Italians in Somaliland, I have not got sufficient information.

Miss WILKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any opposition being put up by the cable companies to the establishment of wireless?

Mr. AMERY: No, because that opposition could only arise in regard to wireless communication between Kenya and this country. That has been established already. There could be no competition between the cable companies and local internal services by wireless.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not very unusual for a Member of the Opposition to praise anything Italian?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that
Members of the Opposition are as much interested in the British Empire as are any other party?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CANTONMENTS, NORTHERN INDIA.

Mr. SANDEMAN: 2 and 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) whether he is aware that since the passing of the Cantonment Act now in force house rent in nearly every station in Northern India has steadily risen; and what steps, if any, are being taken to prevent house rental from exceeding reasonable limits;
(2) why, although several lacs of rupees have been spent on anti-malarial measures and in making the barracks of British troops in Lahore cantonments mosquito proof, no steps whatever have been taken to make the houses of officers there mosquito proof also?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I have received no recent information, but am making inquiries. I should explain that it has not been the practice in the past to provide officers with Government quarters as a matter of course. As a general rule they occupy privately rented bungalows, and their relations with the owners are the ordinary relations between tenant and landlord. In most cases they receive lodging allowance to assist them to meet the expense. The present policy arms at bringing the housing of officers under direct official control, and as it develops the Government will acquire wider powers than it now possesses of standardising the conditions of housing; but the transition will necessarily take time.

Mr. SANDEMAN: Is it not a fact that the Government have power now to take over these houses, and that if they took over a few of these houses the rapacious landlord would be curbed, and is it not also a fact that the Air Force and civil servants, who have perhaps a greater pull, do not suffer from the same question of having to pay exorbitant rents?

Earl WINTERTON: As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's question, to the best of my belief—though I should like to look into the matter—the Government possess no legal power to take over these houses. In the old days they did,
but since then the law has been altered, and the relations between the officers and the landlords, as I have stated in my answer are the ordinary relations between landlord and tenant. With regard to the second part of the question, I should like to have notice of it.

Colonel APPLIN: Is my Noble Friend aware that in a cantonment the landlord provides bungalows for officers and for officers only, and that there is a tacit understanding between him and the cantonment authorities that these bungalows shall be let to officers and to no one else; and in these circumstances will my Noble Friend not take steps to see that officers do get bungalows at a fair rent which have both piped water and mosquito proof rooms?

Earl WINTERTON: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is out-of-date in his information. That was so I believe, before the recent Cantonment Act was passed, but I am informed that now, under the law—though I give this information with reserve, because I should have to look into it—it is open to the landlord to occupy the house himself or to let it to someone else, besides officers.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the Noble Lord not think the Indian landlords should be encouraged to set a better example than is set here by seizing houses in Westminster, Kensington, and other areas?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that can possibly arise out of the question on the Paper. It is a very interesting point, but I do not know what houses in Westminster have to do with cantonments in India.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my Noble Lord aware that even in Government supplied quarters officers have to pay rent for them, and the lodging allowance is nothing like sufficient to meet the rent?

Earl WINTERTON: Perhaps, if my hon. and gallant Friend feels strongly on this point, he will put down another question.

Mr. SANDEMAN: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, although a good supply of piped water is now available in most
cantonments in Northern India, the majority of the landlords have not connected their houses with this supply; and what steps are being taken to compel them to do so?

Earl WINTERTON: I am not aware that there has been any general complaint of this kind, but if my hon. Friend wishes and will give me particulars, I will have further inquiry made.

UNITED PROVINCES (NEW GOVERNOR).

Mr. THURTLE: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if the Government is yet in a position to announce the name of the new Governor of the United Provinces?

Earl WINTERTON: The reply is in the negative.

Mr. THURTLE: When this matter is under consideration, will the Government bear in mind the possibility of appointing an Indian to this post?

Earl WINTERTON: It would be quite improper for any Minister to discuss on the Floor of the House the submission which the Secretary of State is going to make to His Majesty for this appointment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA (COFFEE PLANTATIONS, KILIMANJARO).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that during the season of 1927 some 3,800 bags of Arabica coffee, consigned by the Kilimanjaro Native Plantations' Association, were sold by auction in London at prices very similar to those obtained for Kenya coffee sold at the same auctions; and whether he has received any report as to the manner in which the native coffee plantations on Kilimanjaro have been managed and the present condition of the trees?

Mr. AMERY: I am aware that the Kilimanjaro native Arabica coffee is of high quality and fetches good prices. Indirect Government supervision of native coffee cultivation in Kilimanjaro has proved successful, and the latest reports at my disposal indicate that the trees are in excellent condition.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (COPPER ORE MINES).

Mr. COUPER: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the present company working the copper ore mines in Cyprus hold them on lease; if so, what is the period of the lease and who were the lessors; and if the Cyprus or British Government derive any benefit in the form of royalties or otherwise?

Mr. AMERY: The company holds the mines on a lease from the Cyprus Government for a period of 50 years from 1915. Provision is made in the lease for the payment of royalties to the Cyprus Government.

Mr. COUPER: Is that company a British company registered in this country, or it is a foreign company?

Mr. AMERY: I understand that it is an American company.

Mr. COUPER: Was it open to a British company to get this lease?

Mr. AMERY: I should have to have notice of that particular question. Certainly, it is no part of our policy to exclude foreign countries in helping to develop the Colonies.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. DAY: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statistics that will show the rate of pay offered to single women who are

—
Canada.
Australia.
New Zealand.
South Africa.



Per month.
Per week.
Per week.
Per month.


Cooks
…
$25–50
£1 5s.—£2
£1 10s—£1 15s.
£3–£7


General Servants
…
$15–35
£1 5s.—£1 15s.
£1—£1 5s.
—


Housemaids
…
$20–35
£1 5s.—£1 10s.
£1–£1 5s.
—


Home Helps
…
$15–25
£1–£1 7s. 6d.
£1–£1 5s.
£3–£5

Rates of wages vary considerably from time to time and in different parts of the same country, and the figures given above are approximate only and intended merely as a general guide. The rates are in all cases exclusive of board and lodging.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, with regard to the conversations he has recently had with the Minister of State for Public Works of Western Australia respecting a scheme

assisted to proceed overseas for employment in household work, and can he give particulars?

Mr. AMERY: As the answer to the hon. Member's question is of some length, I propose, with his permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us some rough idea of the pay of these women, because he mentioned last week that they could make enough money in two years to pay their passage back to England?

Mr. AMERY: It would be difficult to give a rough idea in a variety of occupations in a number of different Dominions.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what would be their fare back to England if they had to pay it themselves?

Mr. AMERY: I should have to have notice of that question.

Following is the answer:

I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the "Handbook for Women who are thinking of Settling Overseas," published by the Oversea Settlement Department (Dominions Office) revised to 1st January, 1928, page 15 of which gives the following information regarding the average rates of wages of household workers in the oversea Dominions:

of colonisation there, if he will state what is the present position of the negotiations?

Mr. AMERY: The former Vice-Chairman of the Development and Migration Commission of the Commonwealth of Australia is at present in London with the object of negotiating a new development and land settlement scheme in Western Australia. Preliminary discussions have taken place, and I understand that the proposal will shortly be put before me,
but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: What area is it proposed should come under this scheme, and what is the rainfall?

Mr. AMERY: I think that the total area is something not far short of 40,000 square miles.

Sir N. MOORE: What would be the rainfall?

Mr. AMERY: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (ADVERTISING).

Mr. DAY: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any special sum has been set aside by the Empire Marketing Board for the purpose of advertising with a view to popularising the consumption of Empire-grown tobacco; and, if so, will he give particulars?

Mr. AMERY: It is not the normal practice of the Empire Marketing Board to assign fixed sums for the advertisement of particular commodities, and no such assignment has been made in respect of Empire-grown tobacco. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on the 11th June, the Empire Marketing Board are at present awaiting the forthcoming report of the Imperial Economic Committee on Tobacco before deciding what steps they can best take to popularise Empire-grown tobacco in

—
Financial Year, 1926.
Financial Year, 1927.
Total.



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Exhibitions, Fairs and Shopping Weeks
…
17,667
8
10
26,730
7
0
44,397
15
10


Press Advertising
…
46,911
2
0
77,200
4
10
124,111
6
10


Poster Campaign
…
23,597
6
4
89,677
2
0
113,274
8
4


Lecture Campaign
…
—
7,256
10
0
7,256
10
0


Cinema
…
1,216
17
6
4,633
19
6
5,850
17
0


Miscellaneous
…
449
19
3
848
19
3
1,298
18
6



89,842
13
11
206,347
2
7
296,189
16
6

With regard to the second part of the question, the Board has employed through the medium of His Majesty's Stationery Office the following agents

the United Kingdom. In the meantime they have drawn attention to Empire tobacco both on their poster frames and in their Press advertisements, while exhibits of Empire-grown tobacco have been shown by various Dominions and Colonies in the stands provided for them by the Board at a number of exhibitions.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how much free advertising can be obtained by the asking of unnecessary questions in this House?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the best means of advertising Empire tobacco is to send a fairly large sample to each Member of the House?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what sum has been spent by the Empire Marketing Board on Press advertising and publicity and with what advertising agencies; and to what amount has the expenditure been incurred?

Mr. AMERY: As the answer is of some length I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The expenditure incurred on Press and other forms of publicity from the commencement of the Board's work in June, 1926, up to the 31st March, 1928, is given below. The accounts for the financial year 1927 have not yet been closed, but the amounts shown are those actually brought to account on the 31st March, 1928, and may be subject to adjustment later.

for their Press publicity work from time to time:

Messrs. S. H. Benson, Ltd.

The London Press Exchange, Ltd.

The Service Advertising Co., Ltd.

Messrs. Charles Barker and Sons, Ltd.

Messrs. C. Vernon and Sons, Ltd.

Mr. HARRIS: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the posters now displayed on London hoardings by the Empire Marketing Board showing pictures of Aden, the Suez Canal, and Gibraltar; and will he explain on what grounds these places have been selected as subjects for advertisements by the Empire Marketing Board?

Mr. AMERY: The poster set in which pictures of Aden, the Suez Canal and Gibraltar appeared was designed to call attention to the importance of buying Empire produce by illustrating India's trade with this country. The method chosen to illustrate this idea in an attractive pictorial form was to depict the Empire's Highway to India and to show various stages in that trade route. Pictures of Aden, the Suez Canal and Gibraltar accordingly formed part of the set which also included Malta and Bombay.

Mr. HARRIS: Is not the purpose of the expenditure of the Empire Marketing Board to promote the sale of British goods? What goods are shipped from Aden and Gibraltar which would justify the expenditure of this money; and are we to understand that the Suez Canal is to be regarded as part of the British Empire?

Mr. AMERY: If the hon. Gentleman carefully reads my answer, he will find that it supplies a complete reply to his question.

Mr. HARRIS: Is not this money being found by Parliament for the purpose of promoting the sale of British goods, and if the right hon. Gentleman is not going to advertise British goods, is it not a waste of public money?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is prepared to advise the Empire Marketing Board to make a grant from the funds at their disposal in order to assist the sales of Lancashire cotton goods; and, if not, will he state the reasons?

Mr. AMERY: As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. Hilton) on the 21st March, the Empire Marketing Fund, which represents the monetary equivalent of certain fiscal preferences promised at the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923, and not put into effect, is confined by the terms of the Parliamentary Vote to the furthering of marketing Empire produce in this country. It is not therefore possible to make a grant from this Fund for the encouragement of the sale of Lancashire cotton goods abroad.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is it not a fact that the sale of Lancashire cotton goods would be materially augmented by a better system of marketing; and does the right hon. Gentleman think that, as a basic industry like the cotton trade requires better methods of marketing, it should have some assistance from this fund?

Mr. AMERY: I am all in favour of doing anything I can to help the marketing of Lancashire products, but this particular fund is the equivalent of a certain preference promised to the Dominions at the 1923 Imperial Conference, which is now being given in another form.

Mr. HARRIS: Would it not be better to advertise cotton goods rather than advertise Aden, from which nothing is produced?

Mr. HILTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of our Colonies and Dominions are taking more manufactured cotton from other countries than from Lancashire, and what is he prepared to do to remedy this condition of affairs?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be much better, instead of circulating a picture of the Suez Canal, to circulate a picture of the Crinan Canal?

Mr. HARDIE: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can state how much money has been set aside or has been spent by the Empire Marketing Board for advertising Colonial produce?

Mr. AMERY: The advertising of Colonial produce forms part of the Board's general publicity campaign for the furtherance of the sale of Empire produce in this country. No specific
allocation is made for the advertising of produce from any individual Empire country, or group of countries.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that, despite the money spent in advertising Colonial goods, and the statement which has been made that, as a consequence, it is going to cheapen them, Colonial goods coming here are being kept up at the same high prices as goods from other countries?

Mr. AMERY: indicated dissent
.

Mr. HARDIE: If the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of that fact, will he make himself aware of it, and tell us what he is going to do?

EMPIRE GROWN TOBACCO.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received representations from the Colonial Governments regarding allegations attributing a deleterious effect to Empire tobacco; and what reply he has returned to these representations?

Mr. AMERY: I have not received any such representations from Colonial Governments. I would add that I have no reason to believe that there is any ground for such allegations.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: In view of the fact that these tobaccos are known to be of excellent quality, is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to give the country a free advertisement from the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell), who, I think, received free samples?

Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I promptly returned the bribe that was sent to me to say something about the tobacco, of which I still have the same opinion? Further, on a point of Order, may I ask whether there is any Rule in this House to prevent this form of what I call bribery in order to get someone to say something about the tobacco?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: All I suggested was that the hon. Gentleman should give his opinion, having been asked to do so. He is quite at liberty to do it or not.

Mr. HARDIE: If I am asked to give my opinion, I am going to give it in a
fair way and without first having sent to me a pound of tobacco for which I did not ask.

RUSSIAN OIL PRODUCTS (CIRCULAR).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a trade circular issued by Russian Oil Products in contravention of the Company (Particulars of Directors) Act, 1917, Section 2, Sub-section (2); whether exemption has been granted under the provisions of the Act to the said company; and, if not, what action does he propose to take?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I have seen the document to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The question of proceedings is under consideration.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the circular clearly contravenes the Act, and why does not a prosecution take place?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The question of proceedings, as I said, is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — RADIOGRAPHER'S DEATH (MR. A. A. PARSONS).

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the facts disclosed by the inquest held on 19th June, 1928, at Deptford on the body of Arthur Augustus Parsons, who had been radiographer at the Seamen's Hospital, Greenwich, for over 20 years, and for six years previously at Westminster Hospital, and who died from carcinoma contracted in the course of his duty, he will consider recommending some appropriate method by which the State can show its appreciation of such work for the public good?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): If my hon. Friend will send me full particulars in regard to this case I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORDS SPIRITUAL.

Mr. THURTLE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce any legislation with the object of taking away from the Lords Spiritual the right to sit in the House of Lords?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Prime Minister not aware that recent events have shown that this House has no confidence in the judgment of the bishops?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENTS, SOUTH YORKSHIRE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 48.
asked the Minister of Health whether any representations have been made to him by local authorities in South Yorkshire on the question of rents of houses erected under the Housing Act, 1919; and, if so, will he state the results?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Certain local authorities in South Yorkshire have recently made representations in regard to rents of houses, and my right hon. Friend is in communication with them on the subject.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the Minister of Health is willing to receive a deputation on this question?

Sir K. WOOD: I understand that some communications are passing between the local authorities and the Minister of Health on this subject, but I cannot give any indication as to what the result will be.

RURAL WORKERS ACT.

Sir N. MOORE (for Mr. HURD): 41.
asked the Minister of Health to what extent county councils have used their powers under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926; and if, under the provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, relating to special circumstances, he will invite rural district councils to undertake these powers in areas where county councils have rejected applications on grounds which the Ministry hold to be outside the intentions of Parliament?

Sir K. WOOD: Up to the end of March last, the latest date for which information is available, applications had been received by county councils for assistance under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, in respect of 960 dwellings. At the same date, assistance had been promised in respect of 272
dwellings, and work had been finished on 38 dwellings and was in progress on 139 dwellings. With regard to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend will certainly consider whether different administrative arrangements should be made in cases where he is satisfied that county councils are not administering the Act in a satisfactory manner.

Mr. PALING: Is it not the case that most of these county councils have refused to administer the Act because they object to the Government's policy under this head?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I am not aware of that fact.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that some of them sent in objections of that description?

WORKING-CLASS DWELLINGS.

Sir N. MOORE (for Mr. HURD): 44.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received from the conference of local authorities on housing, held recently at Bath, a resolution asking him to call for a Return, from the local authorities, of low-standard working-class dwellings in their areas, distinguishing between those which are capable of being reconditioned and those which, by reason of their total unfitness, should be condemned; and if he will call for such a Return?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has not received the resolution referred to by my hon. Friend, and, consequently, has not been able to give the matter consideration. But my right hon. Friend is reluctant to add to the burdens of local authorities in the preparation of returns unless he is quite satisfied that the returns will be of substantial value and can be obtained without excessive cost. My hon. Friend will remember that he has made representations to my right hon. Friend on the importance of avoiding unnecessary returns.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

Mr. LEE: 50.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can give the percentage of collieries in the various districts of the British coalfields where coal-cutting and conveying machinery is in use at the coal face, giving the output per man per shift in comparison with the output previous to the introduction of such machinery?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with

District.
Number of Collieries at work in 1927.
Percentage of Collieries using Coal Cutting Machines and/or Conveyors at the coal face.




Per cent.


1.
Northumberland
123
41


2.
Durham
277
38


3.
Cumberland and Westmorland
35
29


4.
Lancashire and Cheshire
234
41


5.
Yorkshire, South
131
40


6.
Yorkshire, West
164
37


7.
Nottinghamshire
46
67


8.
Derbyshire, North
125
30


9.
Derbyshire, South
15
53


10.
Staffordshire, North
93
39


11.
Cannock Chase
47
45


12.
South Staffs and Worcester
116
2


13.
Leicestershire
17
65


14.
Warwickshire
24
54


15.
Shropshire
53
6


16.
Forest of Dean
57
7


17.
Somerset
18
6


18.
Bristol
3
33


19.
Kent
4
50


20.
South Wales and Monmouth
638
24


21.
North Wales
37
41


22.
Fife and Clackmannan
68
76


23.
Lothians (Mid and East)
31
68


24.
Lanarkshire, Linlithgow, Stirling, Renfrew and Dumbarton.
284
58


25.
Ayrshire, Dumfries and Argyll
79
42



Total
2,719
36

I regret that as the machinery has been introduced very gradually over a long period, it is not possible to fix a basic date which would enable me to answer the last part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CHARITIES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 51.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether registration authorities under the War Charities Act, 1916, send periodical reports to the Charity Commissioners of organised efforts in their areas?

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY (Charity Commissioner): The reply is in the negative.

Mr. WILLIAMS: When local complaints are made of this nature, do the

the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Charity Commissioners investigate as to whether the money has been misappropriated?

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: The Commissioners have no power to do that, and it seems to me to be a matter for legislation which might very well be considered by the Home Secretary.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the registration authorities make no report to anybody, not even to the Charity Commissioners?

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: Of course, they report to the local authorities. In the case of the war charities, they apply the surplus as near as possible to the original object for which that fund was created.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 52.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge, as
representing the Charity Commissioners, whether any representation has been made to him in connection with the recent 10,000 shilling fund for ex-service men and their families in Scarborough: and, if so, will he state whether any action has been taken in the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: The registered War Charity known as the "ten thousand shilling fund" has now ceased operations. Under an Order of the Court the balance of the fund (£417 15s. 9d.) has been handed over to the Treasurer of the Women's Section, Scarborough Branch, of the British Legion and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioners.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is tremendous indignation in Scarborough because of the alleged deduction by the British Legion of £315 out of £517 for expenses, and will the hon. and gallant Member cause investigations to be made in order to see whether this allegation is true or not?

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I am not aware of this allegation, and I would point out that if there is any reason to believe that the funds have not been applied for the purposes for which they were intended, and for which the learned Judge made an order, then it lies with the Attorney-General to take such action as he may think fit.

Major COHEN: Is the hon. Member aware that this is purely a local matter?

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: Yes, I am fully aware of that fact. As the British Legion has been mentioned, I would point out that the Charity Commissioners are not really concerned, because what we are discussing is a War charity. At the same time, we have heard that there is trouble in Scarborough in connection with the British Legion with which the headquarters of the British Legion have nothing whatever to do.

Mr. WILLIAMS: While this may be only a local complaint, it is really one which affects the whole nation so far as charity organisation is concerned. I think this House ought to be satisfied that, when charity collections take place, the
money is not diverted from the purpose for which it was originally intended.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I have already pointed out that, if the money has been misapplied, it is open to the Attorney-General to call the attention of the learned Judge to the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, if he has any announcement to make to the House as to the position of ex-British civil servants in the Irish Free State and their rights to compensation under Article 10 of the Irish Treaty, as decided by the Privy Council in the case of Wigg and Cochrane?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Lord Chancellor on the 21st June in another place, in which the present position was fully set out. I propose, if hon. Members agree, to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the despatches which have passed between His Majesty's Government in Great Britain and His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State and the terms of the reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which was approved by His Majesty in Council on 15th June.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of Commons whether the Government have now abandoned their original idea of depriving these ex-British civil servants of the benefit of the decision they obtained from the Privy Council in Wigg and Cochrane? Is that decision now going to stand and are the ex-British civil servants to get the rights to which the Privy Council said they were entitled?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; the whole case will be reargued as a case in reference to the Privy Council, and that will not affect the rights secured in the actual Wigg and Cochrane case for the appellants in that case.

Sir W. DAVISON: If these ex-British civil servants are put to expense in arguing the case before the Privy Council, will their costs be paid by the Treasury?

Mr. AMERY: I will certainly look into that point.

Following are the despatches:

Irish Free State.

No. 178A.

Downing Street,

8th June, 1928.

SIR,

With reference to previous despatches on the subject of the payment of compensation to civil servants under Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement of the 6th December, 1921, I have the honour to state that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain have been giving further consideration to the steps to be taken with a view to carrying out the general policy which has been agreed upon between the two Governments.

2. It will be recalled that the matter was the subject of a Debate in the House of Lords on the 25th April, 1928. In the course of that Debate statements were made both by members of the Judicial Committee who heard the case of Messrs. Wigg and Cochrane versus the Attorney-General of the Irish Free State and also on behalf of the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Cave, indicating that the advice tendered by the Committee had proceeded on certain incorrect assumptions of fact, thereby tending to deprive that advice of its authoritative character. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government in Great Britain think that it is desirable, in the first instance, for the matter to be referred to the Judicial Committee by a special reference under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833.

3. His Majesty's Government in Great Britain hope that His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State will be prepared to assist in securing that all the relevant considerations are placed fully before the Judicial Committee. A draft reference, a copy of which is enclosed, has accordingly been prepared with a view to the matter being submitted to the Judicial Committee at the earliest date possible.

I have, etc.,

(Signed) L. S. AMERY.

The Minister for External Affairs, Irish Free State.

D.5461.

Despatch No. 125A.

Department of External Affairs,

Irish Free State,

10th June, 1928.

SIR,

I have the honour to refer to your despatch No. 178A of 8th June on the subject of the payment of compensation to civil servants under Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty signed on the 6th December, 1921.

2. His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State note the proposal of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain to
refer the matter mentioned in the second paragraph of your despatch to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and in the special circumstances His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State will be prepared to assist in securing that all relevant considerations are placed fully before the Judicial Committee.

3. His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State have no observations to make on the draft of the proposed reference to the Judicial Committee, which was transmitted with your despatch under reply.

I have, etc.,

(Signed) P. McGILLICAN.

Minister for External Affairs.

The Right Honourable

The Secretary of State for

Dominion Affairs,

Downing Street,

London, S.W.1.

Oral Answers to Questions — AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE.

The 15th day of June, 1928.

Present,

Oral Answers to Questions — THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY IN COUNCIL.

Whereas it is provided by Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, that it shall be lawful for His Majesty to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for hearing or consideration any such matters whatsoever as His Majesty shall think fit:

And whereas there was this day read at the Board a letter from the Right Honourable Leopold Amery, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, referring to Article X of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland signed on the 6th December, 1921, whereby the Government of the Irish Free State agreed to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to judges, officials, members of police forces, and other public servants who should be discharged by them or who should retire in consequence of the change of government effected in pursuance thereof (which Articles of Agreement were confirmed by the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and by Act No. 1 of 1922 of Dail Eireann, respectively) and stating that the Government of the Irish Free State in determining the amount of compensation to be paid by them under the provisions of the said Article had followed the principles laid down in certain minutes of the British Treasury regarding the assessment of superannuation allowances or gratuities and in particular a minute of the 20th March, 1922, and that it had been contended that in respect of civil servants transferred to the service of the Provisional Government or of the Government of the Irish Free State after the date of the last mentioned minute the amounts so determined were not fair compensation or alternatively were not fair
compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, within the meaning and true intent of Article X of the said Articles of Agreement:

Now therefore, His Majesty is pleased, by and with the advice of His Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, that the question whether the payment of compensation determined in manner aforesaid in respect of civil servants or other officials or public servants transferred to the service of the Provisional Government or of the Government of the Irish Free State after the 20th day of March, 1922, is a payment of compensation within the meaning and true intent of Article X of the said Articles of Agreement be and the same is hereby referred to the Judicial Committee for their hearing and consideration.

M. P. A. Hankey.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH OFFICIAL WIRELESS SERVICE.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his Department is responsible for the collection of information and items of news, and for the editorial supervision, in connection with the British official wireless service?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): Yes, Sir.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a copy of the daily service placed in the Library of the House?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think it would serve a useful purpose. I am quite willing, if my hon. and gallant Friend comes to the Foreign Office to show him the daily summary.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Would it not be a great advantage if hon. Members could have this matter for reference?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TREATIES).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what regions are indicated in paragraph 10 of his reply to the United States Government respecting the multilateral peace treaty in which His Majesty's
Government reserves its freedom of action in the event of interference with these regions; and whether this reservation is limited to the contingency of wanton attack upon any of the contemplated regions?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply returned on 5th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), in which my right hon. Friend stated that it would be undesirable to add to the general statement of the position of His Majesty's Government contained in their Note of the 19th of May. I can make no further statement at present.

Mr. BUXTON: Does not the new proposal of Mr. Kellogg meet the point completely and enable His Majesty's Government to sign the Pact without reservation?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I may say that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the new Note of the United States shows a considerable advance, and that it is being most sympathetically considered.

Mr. THURTLE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say something a little less grudging than "a considerable advance"?

S.S. "JERVIS BAY."

Captain GARRO-JONES: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can throw light on recent happenings on board the liner "Jervis Bay"; and how it happened that eight stowaways, among 15 officers, a crew of 174, and 600 passengers, were able to threaten, if not to interrupt, the captain's control of the vessel?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Board of Trade cabled to the collector of customs at Colombo on Friday last asking him to make inquiries into this matter as soon as the "Jervis Bay" arrived, and to reply by telegraph.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman say what will be the scope of the inquiry? For example, will it cover the question of why it was necessary to have passengers to guard these stowaways?

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is entirely a matter within the discretion of the man on the spot.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Whatever the discretion of the man on the spot, will not the Board of Trade make the scope of the inquiry so large as to secure an answer to those questions which are agitating the public mind?

Mr. WILLIAMS: My answer was that we are making inquiries; it was not a promise to hold an inquiry.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 53.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty at what time His Majesty's Ship "Enterprise" received the first message from the liner "Jervis Bay"; what action was taken to deal with this threat to the captain's control of the liner; and what steps are contemplated to deal with the matter now?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): His Majesty's Ship "Enterprise" received the first message from the "Jervis Bay" at 9.30 a.m. on the 20th June—Indian time. A Marine guard was dispatched in the Admiralty Oiler "Slavol," which was the only immediately available vessel. His Majesty's Ship "Suffolk," a cruiser proceeding to China and which was steaming towards Colombo from the westward, was instructed to increase speed to intercept and assist the "Jervis Bay." The last part of the question does not now arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CLEARING OFFICE FOR ENEMY DEBTS.

Mr. KELLY: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the firms of stockbrokers who were employed by the clearing office of the Enemy Debts Department and the dates when these firms were appointed?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The firms of stockbrokers employed by the Department for the Administration of German, Austrian, Hungarian and Bulgarian Property are:—

Messrs. Williamson, Fawcett and Stirling, who were first employed on the 8th November, 1921;
Messrs. Kerr, Ware and Co., who were employed by the Public Trustee as
30
Custodian of Enemy Property and continued by the Administrator of German Property from January, 1925;
Messrs. Godfray and Co., who were appointed on the 7th December, 1925; and
Sir R. W. Garden and Co., who were appointed on the 16th May, 1928.

In addition, orders to sell bearer securities are given to the Bank of England, and executed by the Bank's brokers. Messrs. J. P. Morgan and Co., New York, who were first employed in February, 1923, sell American securities.

Mr. KELLY: Are these stockbrokers still engaged in the service of the Enemy Debts Department?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is it a permanent appointment, and could the hon. Gentleman say who appointed them?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The appointment can only be for the time that the Department is in existence. They have been appointed for the time being, and they will continue to act as long as they give satisfaction.

Mr. KELLY: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of employés who were engaged in the Enemy Debts Department in June, 1926, 1927, and 1928?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The total staff of the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts employed in London and abroad on the 1st June, 1926, 1927, and 1928, was 914, 729, and 598 respectively.

Mr. KELLY: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the officer now engaged as Controller of the Clearing Office Enemy Debts was appointed to that post?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The present Controller of the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts was appointed on 1st January, 1926, after serving in that office as Secretary, and later Deputy-Controller, since the 31st October, 1919. Prior to his appointment to the Clearing Office the Controller had had over 27 years' service in the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.

Mr. KELLY: Does this Controller hold any other appointment?

Mr. WILLIAMS: He holds no other public appointment.

Mr. KELLY: Does he hold any private appointment of profit?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, I understand he does.

Mr. KELLY: Is it with the approval of the Board of Trade that the Controller of the Department is holding another office of profit, which may interfere with his work in the Department?

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is within the knowledge of the Board of Trade that he holds the office of chairman of a building society; he has always held that office with the full knowledge of the Board of Trade. So far as I am aware, there is no conflict between his two sets of duties.

Mr. KELLY: Has any inquiry taken place as to whether or not his second position interferes with his duty, and whether the time occupied by his office as Controller has been interfered with?

Mr. WILLIAMS: There has been nothing in the nature of a formal inquiry. Allegations were made that there was some conflict, and on investigation it was shown they were quite unfounded.

WELSH BOARD OF HEALTH (CHAIRMAN).

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state his reasons for abolishing the post of chairman of the Welsh Board of Health?

Sir K. WOOD: On the retirement of Sir Thomas Hughes from the chairmanship of the Welsh Board of Health the position was reviewed as is the case from time to time with all sections of my Department, in order to make sure that a proper relation existed between the personnel engaged and the work falling upon the Board. This review showed that the bulk of the Board's work is done and done satisfactorily by the members in their individual capacity and meetings of the Board for collective deliberation are only rarely held. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend felt that the employment of four higher officers on the Board was no longer justified and that the work could quite well be done in future by three. I may add that the Ministry of Health Act, 1919,
empowers my right hon. Friend to appoint such officers as he thinks fit to constitute a Board of Health in Wales and it neither specifies any number nor lays down that there shall be any chairman.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the abolition of this post is causing a great deal of feeling throughout Wales and a certain amount of indignation; and will he not ask the Minister of Health to reconsider his decision and at the same time inquire if the Minister of Health is willing to receive a deputation on the subject?

Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the Parliamentary Secretary state the amount of money that has been saved by abolishing this appointment and will he look into other Departments?

Sir K. WOOD: I believe there is a saving of about £1,600 a year. I think there is some misapprehension if any indignation has arisen as regards the particular action which the Minister of Health has taken. The number of the Board at the present moment is the same as when it was first constituted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he was Prime Minister.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to receive a deputation on this subject?

Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Baronet had better communicate with the Minister of Health.

Mr. MORRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a volume of protest throughout the length and breadth of Wales in regard to the abolition of this appointment, and that protest comes not only from the Liberal party but also from members of the Conservative party as well? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman was appointed in order to give recognition to the autonomy of Wales? Is not the effect of this abolition to place the Welsh nation under the jurisdiction of the English Commissioners?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, that cannot be the case. If the hon. Member will refer to the provisions of the Act of 1919, he
will see that no provision was made for the appointment of a Chairman, and obviously each case must be dealt with on its merits. This Board has only met, on an average, three times every year, and consequently the hon. Member will see that there was some necessity for exercising a little economy in this matter.

Mr. MORRIS: Is not the chief economy the good government of the country with the consent of the country; and how can the right hon. Gentleman expect a Board to work effectively unless it has a proper head?

Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Member can rely upon the three Welshmen who are now members of the Board.

Mr. MORRIS: What reason can there be for making this change? If it was found necessary to have a Chairman before, why is it not necessary now to continue having a Chairman?

Sir K. WOOD: As I have already explained, the Board rarely meets, and it was necessary to effect a considerable saving. The Minister of Health believes that the duties of the office will be carried on efficiently, and at the same time a considerable sum of money will be saved.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to make any alteration in the status of the Ministry of Pensions during the life of the present Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

FOREIGN PURCHASES.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for War the value of any foreign goods purchased during the last financial year by or on behalf of his Department, and what percentage this bears to the total purchases?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The value of foreign goods purchased at headquarters during the last financial year was £250,648, or 3.40 per cent. of the total purchases. These figures include foodstuffs to the value of £72,453, and copper and timber to the value of £142,068, representing 98 per cent. and 1.93 per cent. of the total purchases respectively.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 65.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the value of any foreign goods purchased by or on behalf of the Stationery Office during the last financial year; and what percentage this bears to the total purchases?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Exact information in reply to the first part of the question could only be obtained at the cost of a great deal of labour. A conjectural figure for the past financial year is £30,000—the same as for 1926—which would represent between 1 per cent. and 1½ per cent. of the total expenditure. Perhaps I may repeat the statement made to the hon. Member by my predecessor in answer to his question of 21st June, 1927. He stated that the practice of the Stationery Office is to confine purchases of foreign goods to articles which cannot be obtained of British make, such as foreign books and periodicals and certain office machinery and parts.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH TROOPS, SHAMEEN).

Miss WILKINSON: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the detachment of British infantry sent to occupy Shameen last year has been withdrawn; and, if not, what is the present strength of the British garrison of Shameen; whether the men forming the garrison are relieved at regular intervals; what is the state of health of the garrison; and how much longer it is intended to retain a British force at Shameen?

Mr. COOPER: A detachment of British infantry, numbering approximately 120, is still stationed at Shameen. It is relieved at regular intervals. In the latest report received, the health of the detachment is stated to be good. The retention of the detachment at Shameen is dependent on the political situation in China.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (DOMESTIC SERVANTS).

Miss WILKINSON: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether aliens entering domestic service in this country under a permit are liable to deportation if they leave that particular employer, however un-
satisfactory conditions may be; and whether such an alien has any right of appeal or can application be made to transfer to another employer in a similar type of service?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): Permits for aliens who wish to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of employment, whether domestic service or otherwise, are issued by the Ministry of Labour and not by the Home Office. No objection is raised, as a rule, when an alien who has been permitted to come here for domestic service wishes to transfer to another employer in the same capacity. But each case has to be considered on its merits.

Miss WILKINSON: Do I understand, in that case, that the police are outside their jurisdiction in telling a domestic servant who wishes to leave her employer that, if she does so, she will be deported to her country of origin?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I cannot understand any such circumstance arising. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, perhaps she will communicate with me.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSIZE JURORS (EXPENSES).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 60.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that jurors called upon to attend assizes are frequently put to considerable expenditure, which they can often ill afford, in payment of railway fares in connection with their duties as jurymen; and whether he will consider the introduction of legislation providing that members of juries attending assizes be repaid out-of-pocket travelling expenses incurred in the performance of their duties?

Sir V. HENDERSON: There is a certain amount of force in the suggestion that jurors in criminal cases should be repaid their out-of-pocket travelling expenses, but I fear that my right hon. Friend cannot propose legislation at the present time for putting this new charge upon public funds.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that great inconvenience is caused to farmers and others
living in rural districts who have to come into the towns to act as jurors and have to pay their own expenses? Did he see the case in the papers last week in which a juror was forced to borrow the money to pay his railway fare?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware, further, that many workmen who are purchasing their own houses by monthly instalments have been called upon to serve on juries, and that net only can they ill afford to provide railway fares, but they certainly cannot afford to lose their wages?

Sir V. HENDERSON: My right hon. Friend is aware of all the circumstances, but there is a considerable difference between criminal law and civil law in this matter. A big question of principle is involved, and it would not be possible to undertake to introduce legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL

SURTAX AND SUPER-TAX.

Sir W. DAVISON: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can assure the House that it is not the intention of the Inland Revenue to demand the payment of Surtax and Super-tax in respect of the same period?

Mr. SAMUEL: The Super-tax for 1928–29 is chargeable upon the statutory income (as charged to Income Tax) of the preceding year, 1927–28, and is payable on the 1st January, 1929. The Sur-tax for 1928–29, i.e., the deferred instalment of the new graduated Income Tax, is chargeable upon the statutory income of the year 1928–29, and will not be payable until 1st January, 1930. My hon. Friend will thus see that, although both Super-tax and Sur-tax are chargeable for 1928–29, they will be charged on the incomes of different years, and the latter will be payable a year later than the former. No double taxation will, therefore, in fact result.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not the case that, although the income under assessment is different, the taxpayer will have to pay Super-tax and Surtax in respect of the same period?

Mr. SAMUEL: If my hon. Friend will look at the last part of my answer, for the length of which I apologise—it is a
difficult question to deal with—he will see that I have said that:
No double taxation will, therefore, in fact, result.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that all Super-tax payers will have to pay every penny that is due from them?

OILS IMPORT DUTY (FIRE BRIGADES).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at the annual conference of the Fire Brigades Association urging that petrol consumed by fire engines and ambulances should be exempt from the tax on petrol; and whether he has decided to accede to this request?

Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the resolution referred to. As regards the second part of the question, he regrets that he cannot see his way to give the exemption suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS SEIZURES (SALES).

Mr. DAY: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of goods seized by the Customs officials in the year 1927 which were sold by public auction or private competitive tender, giving the figures for each item separately?

Mr. SAMUEL: Seizures by Customs officials in the year 1927 which have since been sold realised, duty-paid, approximately:




£


Sold by public auction
…
370


Sold after competitive tender
…
1,300

Mr. DAY: Are these detailed particulars advertised in the Press?

Mr. SAMUEL: I could not say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

"JORDANS" MEETING HOUSE (PROPOSED ROAD).

Sir ALFRED HOPKINSON: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can yet give any information as to the road proposed to be made near the historic meeting house known as Jordans; and
whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent injury to the meeting house and disturbance by the construction of such a road?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have nothing to add to the answers which I have already given to questions on this subject. The local authority have town-planning proposals under consideration for this area. No scheme of road improvement has yet been submitted to my Department, but should such proposals come before me I will see that all practical alternatives are considered.

ROADS ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 49.
asked the Minister of Health what additional responsibilities, in respect of highways, will be transferred to the county authorities under the proposals outlined in the Budget statement?

Sir K. WOOD: It is intended, as part of the proposals outlined in the Budget statement, to transfer to the county councils the responsibility for the administration of all Class I and Class II roads outside London and the county boroughs, and of all roads in rural districts. In the case of Class I and Class II roads arrangements could still be made in appropriate oases for the carrying out of the actual work of maintenance by the councils of non-county boroughs or urban districts.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW INSTITUTION, WEST HAM (PENSIONERS).

Mr. GROVES: 42.
asked the Minister of Health the number of pensioners under the contributory scheme, i.e., 65 to 70 years of age, who have entered a rate-aided institution within the Poor Law union of West Ham during the present year to date for medical or surgical treatment, and who have had their pensions attached toward the cost of their maintenance, and give the number of cases where treatment exceeded three months' duration within the institution?

Sir K. WOOD: This information is not in my right hon. Friend's possession, but he will ask the guardians if they can supply it and communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on the 21st November, 1927, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated in this House, in reply to a question from me, that these pensions are not attachable until these people have been in the central home under special medical care for 12 weeks; and is he also aware that the West Ham Guardians collect these moneys during the first week, and will he take steps to stop that practice?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of that, but I have no doubt that what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said was in accordance with the facts.

Mr. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT.

HIS MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO ADDRESS.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have to acquaint the House of the fact that their Address of Tuesday, the 19th June to His Majesty,
Praying His Majesty that He will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of His Royal Favour upon the Right Hon. John Henry Whitley, Speaker of this House, for his eminent services during the important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and dignity presided in

the Chair of this House; and assuring His Majesty that whatever expense His Majesty may thing proper to incur on that account this House will make good the same,

—has been presented to His Majesty, and His Majesty has been pleased to receive the same very graciously, and has commanded me to acquaint this House that His Majesty is desirous, in compliance with the request of His faithful Commons, to confer upon the Right Hon. John Henry Whitley some signal mark of His Royal Favour; but as the same cannot be effectually granted and secured without the concurrence of Parliament, His Majesty recommends to the House of Commons the adoption of such measures as may be necessary for the accomplishment of such purpose.

Committee to consider His Majesty's Most Gracious Answer upon Wednesday.—[The Prime Minister].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 85.

Division No. 178.]
AYES.
[3.42 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cecil Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Forrest, W.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chapman, Sir S.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Christie, J. A.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spence
Gates, Percy


Astor, Viscountess
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Atholl, Duchess of
Clarry, Reginald George
Goff, Sir Park


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gower, Sir Robert


Balniel, Lord
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Grant, Sir J. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th'g'w, E)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cooper, A. Duff
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bennett, A. J.
Cope, Major Sir William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Berry, Sir George
Couper, J. B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hammersley, S. S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hartington, Marquess of


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hills, Major John Waller


Briscoe, Richard George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hilton, Cecil


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Drewe, C.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Buchan, John
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Ellis, R. G.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Burman, J. B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Iveagh, Countess of


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Loder, J. de V.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Long, Major Eric
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Storry-Deans, R.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Pennefather, Sir John
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Penny, Frederick George
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Lumley, L. R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Templeton, W. P.


MacIntyre, I.
Preston, William
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


McLean, Major A.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Raine, Sir Walter
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ramsden, E.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Macquisten, F. A.
Rentoul, G. S.
Tinne, J. A.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Titchfieid, Major the Marquess of


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Malone, Major P. B.
Ropner, Major L.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Margesson, Captain D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynenmouth)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Salmon, Major I.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Milne, J. S. Wardiaw-
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandon, Lord
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustav[...] D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Womersley, W. J.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Nelson, Sir Frank
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dinn, C.)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smithers, Waldron
Wragg, Herbert


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nuttall, Ellis
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Wallace.


Oakley, T.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. O. F.



NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Baker, Walter
Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harney, E. A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Strauss, E. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John H.
Kelly, W. T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Lee, F.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dennison, R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Townend, A. E.


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Edge, Sir William
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Varley, Frank B.


Fenby, T. D.
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, J. P.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thamp[...]on)
Wetlock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Wright, W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold



Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Bill,

Caerphilly Urban District Council Bill,

Llandudno Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision with respect to the admission into the London main drainage system of sewage and drainage from the borough of Ilford and the urban district of Barking Town." [London County Council (Ilford and Barking Drainage) Bill [Lords].

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Whitby Waterworks Com-
pany to construct new works and to raise additional capital; for increasing the charges of the company; and for other purposes." [Whitby Water Bill [Lords].

London County Council (Ilford and Barking Drainage) Bill [Lords],

Whitby Water Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Continued in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Duty on Tea.)

Mr. RILEY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, at the beginning, to insert the words "In lieu of."
The purpose of the Amendment is, of course, to try and induce the Committee to make a reduction of the Tea Duty from 4d. to 1d. per lb. I have no hesitation in saying that we desire to challenge the whole policy of the taxation of commodities for household use as being not only inequitable, but entirely unnecessary as a policy of national taxation. I also make no apology for detaining the Committee on this Amendment, although by general agreement this subject is regarded as being threadbare. As far as I am concerned, and, I feel sure, as far as my colleagues are concerned, so long as there is a vestige of taxation remaining upon articles such as tea we shall always, I hope, offer the most uncompromising opposition. I notice that on this occasion, as on other occasions, certain Members of the party below the Gangway are also showing by the Amendments which they have placed upon the Order Paper a lively interest in the attempt to bring about a reduction in duties of this kind. Those of us who have always stood for the policy of relieving foodstuffs of all burdens of taxation welcome the support either of the party below the Gangway or of any other section of the Committee.
It is worth while at the outset, in view of the enthusiasm which has been shown by some Members of the party below the Gangway with regard to this policy, to recall that if the Liberal party in those favourable days of 1906 to 1914 had not been weak and insincere with regard to their professions in favour of this policy we need not have been debating this question in this Committee this afternoon. I will not use harsher words regarding them than that they lacked sincerity and courage. It is, I think, worth while to temper the support that is given to us this afternoon by our friends below the Gangway by recalling
that from 1906 to 1914 they as a party continuously had a majority in this House and for the larger part of the time a majority bigger than the present Government enjoy. Yet when the War broke out in 1914 the Tea Duty stood, I think, at 5d. per pound, which is 1d. more than it is at the present time, and this notwithstanding the long and loud professions made by the Liberal party of a free breakfast table. We welcome the repentance although it is somewhat tardy, and we hope that they will carry as many of their friends with them on this occasion in support of this Amendment as their professions on the subject indicate that they would do.
What are the main features of this duty? In the first place, the duty weighs heaviest upon the largest family and upon the poorest family. The larger the family and the poorer the family the heavier is the tax, because the poorer and the larger the family the move they are driven to the use of tea as a common beverage. Thus the consumption of tea is increased as the size and poverty of the family increases. Obviously, from that point of view, the duty presses most heavily upon the people who are least able to bear it. It outrageously violates the accepted principle that taxation should be imposed according to the ability to bear it.
It may be argued, and no doubt will be argued this afternoon, that the amount of the duty is not a very substantial burden, oven upon the poorest household. What are the facts? The facts are that on an average the burden per household is from 14s. to 17s. per annum. A tax of 4d. a pound works out, roughly, in an average household, at from 14s. to 17s. per annum. It may be argued that that is not a very substantial burden. It may not be a substantial burden from the point of view of the households with which most of us may personally be acquainted, and especially from the point of view of the households with which hon. Members opposite are usually in contact; but I need not remind my hon. Friends on these benches that in thousands of households in the mining areas, where not a single person is being employed, [...]4s. becomes a very serious burden, and its remission would therefore be a very substantial relief. The argument that it is not a serious burden is one which will not hold water to-day.
4.0. p.m.
Another feature of this particular duty on tea is that the people least able to bear taxation in actual practice have to pay the largest proportion of the duty. Hon. Members are aware that this duty is not an ad valorem duty; it is a duty per pound. Whether a pound of tea is 1s. 6d. or is 3s. 6d. the duty is the same. Therefore, this means that thousands and thousands of the poorest people, the unemployed, widows and others, are taxed to the extent of something like 28 per cent. of the price of the article that they require. A tax of 4d. a pound on the cheapest tea works out at something like 28 per cent., whereas, if you take tea at 3s. 6d. a pound, which, after all, is not an expensive kind of tea, the duty will be only 10 per cent. From that point of view, hon. Members will realise the unfairness and inequality of the incidence of the duty. I know that we shall be told this afternoon, either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary that that argument does not apply, and we shall be reminded of the statement of a Chancellor of the Exchequer that the working classes do not buy cheap tea. What are the facts? I contend that the argument is an entire misrepresentation. It may be quite true, and no doubt it is true, that the majority of the comfortable working classes have the good sense, if circumstances permit, to buy tea of a good quality and pay a decent price, but there are hundreds of thousands of casual workers who have to buy their tea, not by the pound or half-pound, but a quarter of a pound and even twopennyworth at a time, and to those people the price is three or four shillings a pound, although they buy tea of the lowest price.
There is another point to which I want to refer. I submit that this tax is thoroughly unsound from an economic point of view. We have recently had many speeches upon the Budget as to the burdens upon production. There is provision made for relieving production by something like £29,000,000. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he does not regard the ratio of cost of living, its rise and fall, as just as much a burden upon production as rates upon local premises? I need not say that if the cost of living went up substantially
or Income Tax or other taxes, they would affect the cost of production. On that ground, the whole community subject to this burden of the Tea Duty is entitled to the same consideration, and to more, than is given to rich people who do not need relief at all. As far as I can find out, there are only two arguments which on the many occasions this duty has been debated, have been put forward in defence of it. The first, as I understand it, is that it would be unfair and impolitic to relieve the mass of the people of the country of all taxation, the inference being that the millions of people who do not pay direct taxes must pay taxation in some other way, indirectly upon tea, sugar and so on.
That is the first argument which, I understand, is used against the remission of this duty. I do not accept that argument, and, as long as there is a single pound of unearned income or of super-income which is above a decent, necessary standard of life, I am opposed to indirect taxation of any kind at all. On that ground, I say that the argument does not hold water and, what is more, it violates the principles which have been embodied in legislation in this House over and over again. What is the basis of the Income Tax? Time after time it has been affirmed that you have no right to call upon any member of the State to contribute to Income Tax until he has a minimum income which gives him a decent standard of life. Can anyone contend that you have not to-day tens of thousands of people in the mining areas below a decent standard of life? Can it be contended that a wage to-day of £2 a week can provide a decent living? Yet this tax is imposed upon those people. On that ground, therefore, the argument that these people ought to pay this tax if they do not pay Income Tax is also unsound.
The other argument, the main argument, put forward, is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not possibly afford to remit the duty, which, everyone agrees, is not an ideal or even an equitable method of raising money. If the Amendment be accepted, it means about £4,500,000 per annum, and yet in this very Budget a new policy is put forward which is to raise £29,000,000 for another purpose, and that £29,000,000 is to go largely to one section—the landed interest.

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot have a general discussion on other forms of taxation. It is quite true that upon the Resolution for the Tea Duty it has been the custom to allow discussion about direct and indirect taxation, but not on a Clause of the Finance Bill.

Mr. RILEY: Of course, I shall respect your ruling, but I submit, at the same time, that I am perfectly entitled to produce arguments which have been used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to refer to what is being done in another direction, in support of my claim that if the State can afford one thing it can afford the other. I submit that that is a perfectly fair argument to use.

Mr. MACKINDER: On the point of Order. Are we to understand that in this Debate on the Tea Duty we are not to refer, as my hon. Friend referred, to the incidence of relief which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing, and other taxes?

The CHAIRMAN: I have been refreshing my memory on the subject, and I find that, on the Resolution for the Tea Duty when first brought in, a general discussion upon the question of indirect taxation has been allowed by custom, but that is not so when the Clauses of the Finance Bill have been reached. Then the arguments must be confined to the Tea Duty itself. Of course a passing reference to other forms of taxation would be in order, but the hon. Gentleman seems to me to be going into the whole question of how the Petrol Duty is to be distributed, and, that being so, I think I ought to stop this discussion from the very first.

Mr. RILEY: I was not intending to discuss that. I was only mentioning an example of what was being done, to rebut the chief argument used on these occasions against the remission of this duty, namely, that the country cannot afford it. I submit that if the argument is again put forward against this Amendment that the country cannot afford it, we are entitled to point out that in this particular Budget large sums of money are being found for other purposes, and, in one case, money is being wasted upon those who do not need it.

Mr. GILLETT: I always feel inclined to offer a word of congratulation to an hon. Member who moves an Amendment
on the Tea Duty, and finds anything at all new to say on the subject, and my hon. Friend, it seems to me, has found many things entirely fresh to say on this occasion I cannot help thinking that if there should come a time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) should abolish the Tea Duty a together, a large number of Members in the House would feel that they were bereft of something that had become almost a part of their lives when they open the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. It may be that these are the reasons which induced the Liberal party not to carry out their promise of a free breakfast table.
I want to say a word or two about the tea trade, because the proposals we are making this afternoon to impose a duty on tea, and, at the same time, to give, as the Clause does, Imperial preference, entitles us to pay a little attention to what is happening in the tea trade itself. I was rather interested, in looking at the figures in regard to the imports of tea into this country, published in the last Report on Customs and Excise, to find that, although the total figure in lbs. is given at 415,000,000, an increase of 9,000,000 over the previous year, there is one very interesting fact in connection with it, and one certainly which I should imagine, would be of interest to hon. Members opposite, namely, that while there was a decrease in the amount of tea that came from the British Colonies; there was a very large increase in the amount of tea that came from other quarters—China, the Dutch East Indies, and other foreign countries, so much so, that the latter figure rose about 14,000,000, while there was a fall of 5,000,000 in regard to the British Colonies. This seems to me all the more extraordinary in view of the fact that we are giving a preference to British Possessions, and the Report itself points out in its introduction that about 84 per cent. of the tea cleared during that year was of Empire origin, as compared with 87 per cent. for the year 1925–26, and 84 per cent. for the year 1924–25. In other words, we have gone back to the proportion of the year before last in comparison with the figures I am now discussing.
There is also another factor which seems to me worthy of the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We
find that the more expensive tea is that which comes from our own Possessions. The tea from other countries is decidedly cheaper. The average figure for Empire tea works out at 18.53d., while, for the tea from other countries, it is 15.34d. At first I wondered whether this drift, if I may so call it, in the direction of a decrease in the supply of tea coming from the Empire was only shown in the figures up to March, 1927, but when we look at the latest figures, for May, 1928, we find that there has been a total decrease in the imports for tea for the first five months of this year as compared with 1927, and that the foreign tea has held its own, almost the whole amount of the decrease having taken place in Empire tea.
I turn to see whether there is any likely explanation to be found in this country. Perhaps those who have some technical knowledge of the subject may be able to offer an explanation. I presume that the tea coming from the Empire is of better quality than the tea we are receiving from China and Java and other sources. On the other hand, it has occurred to me that the movement in the tea market a few years ago to control output might have had a prejudicial effect on the amount of tea coming to this country from the British Empire. Perhaps we are repeating the mistake that was brought before our minds so strongly when the House recently considered the question of rubber. I know the restriction placed on tea was not at all comparable to the restriction on rubber, but I notice in the "Times" to-day a small paragraph dealing with the position regarding tea, in which reference is made to the very large amount of tea held in the warehouses in this country.
There is one other factor to which I would draw attention. I take a list of dividends announced by tea companies, which appears, I suppose by chance, in "The Economist" for this week. I find one company paying 15 per cent. and another 25 per cent., while a third announces 60 per cent., compared with 50 per cent. in the previous year. Still another announces 40 per cent., instead of 25 per cent. in the previous year. Then we come to a company which has paid
no dividend either this year or last year, but that is followed by a company which is paying 45 per cent. this year instead of nothing; and in the further list of companies we find the following percentages: 45, 15, 7, 25, 30 (free of tax), and 15, and there is one company which has paid, for two years, a 75 per cent. dividend. These very high figures are rather extraordinary, and I wonder if the tea companies have been successful in the effort which they made some two or three years ago to limit the amount of production. At the same time it seems to me that the question which confronts the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that cheaper tea is coming from other countries and is being very largely bought in this country. The explanation may be that it is being bought by the poorer people because they cannot afford the higher-priced tea.
While hon. Members opposite may be in favour of an Imperial preference, it seems very doubtful whether such a preference is justified, if the companies concerned are keeping their prices high and penalising the poorer people and even making the cheaper tea which comes from other countries more expensive than it would otherwise be. No doubt it has been found possible to put the duty upon the consumer of the cheaper tea without bringing it up to the figure charged by the English companies, and, to me, that is a question which seriously affects the whole incidence of the tax which we are now considering. The Mover of the Amendment has referred to the other aspects of the subject. The question as to direct and indirect taxation does not arise on this occasion but, as an old standing principle, I entirely agree with the Mover of the Amendment in opposing the imposition of any taxation upon tea which is such a necessity in the lives of practically all the people of this country. Among the poorer class of people, and especially among the older women, tea is almost a necessity of life, and if this duty is increasing the price, as we know it must be, I am opposed to it. I am equally opposed to the preference if it means that, while allowing the larger duty to go through, we are also putting a further burden upon an article which is so essential to the poorest of our people.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) for raising this point as to the relative quantities of Empire and foreign tea which are being imported. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) drew my attention to this matter when we last debated the Tea Duty, and I promised to look into the facts. I think it is an important matter, and those who are competent to examine and analyse the position in this respect will do so. I think we shall be able to have some explanation of the reason in due course. It may interest the Committee to know that the percentage of Empire tea, in relation to the whole imports, has shown a falling off and that there has been an increase in the amount of foreign tea imported.

Mr. GILLETT: Up to what date?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have the figures here for 1911–1913 compared with 1927–1928, but I must point out to hon. Members that the figures of 1911–1913 are for the United Kingdom, including Southern Ireland, whereas those for 1927–1928 include Northern Ireland only. Perhaps I can best explain matters to the Committee by reading the figures. In 1911–1913, out of a total 268,000,000 lbs., 87 per cent. was Empire, and in 1927–1928, out of a total of 402,000,000 lbs., 81 per cent. was Empire. The Chinese importation has fallen considerably—from 4 per cent. in 1911–1913 to 2.7 per cent. in 1927–1928, and other foreign imports have fallen from 6 in 1911–1913 to 3 in 1927–1928; but the importation from Java and Sumatra has risen from 8.0 per cent. in 1911–1913 to 15.1 per cent. in 1927–1928. That is an interesting economic question and will have to be looked into carefully.
I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible in reply to the speeches made on behalf of this Amendment. We went into this matter exhaustively last month and I have no desire to weary the Committee by dealing further with the points which were dealt with by me in the Debate on that occasion. The fact of the matter is that if this series of Amendments were accepted, it would mean a loss to the Exchequer in the whole year of between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 because, of course, it would include coffee,
chicory and cocoa. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said on more than one occasion that if he had £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 to spare he would like to see a free breakfast table of Empire foods as much as anyone, though there are other necessities, the cost of which bears heavily upon the poorer section of our fellow-citizens and to the relief of which he would rather devote that money. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] There is sugar to begin with; and, while it is all very well for people to say that tobacco is not a necessity, yet it is a harmless and innocent and necessary comfort for a large portion of the population of this country.

Mr. B. SMITH: That is why you increased the duty on it, I suppose.

Mr. SAMUEL: In regard to tea, to what does the duty amount? The Colwyn Committee has pointed out that the total burden per head, per annum, in respect of Tea Duty is 2s. 7d. I am quite ready to agree that every farthing on the shoulders of a poor man is a burden, but can anyone say that 2s. 7d. per year is a heavy burden?

Mr. RILEY: Yes, 2s. 7d. for each child in a family.

Mr. SAMUEL: It is all relative, and 2s. 7d. par year, per person, although a burden, could not, I think, be described by any hon. Member opposite, even by the widest imagination, as a heavy burden. For that reason and for those which have already been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, these Amendments are not such as we can ask the Committee to accept.

Mr. VIANT: I listened very attentively to the Financial Secretary's reply—or his attempt to reply—to the points made by the previous speakers, and for the life of me I cannot understand his statement. We are everlastingly being told about the need for improving trade and, even though the duty on tea is said to amount only to 2s. 7d. per head of the population per annum, the removal of that imposition would mean a vast improvement in the purchasing power of the mass of the people in this country. We are told that the revenue from it amounts to £6,000,000 per annum, and I suggest that if that £6,000,000 were spread over the mass of the people, they would spend it in
purchasing other necessaries of life. We take the view which is shared by a large number of people in the country, that the device of indirect taxation is resorted to solely for the purpose of keeping the mass of the people in general ignorance as to the amount of taxation which they are paying. There can be no other reason for it, and we stand firmly by the principle that the people of the country are entitled to know precisely the amount of taxation which they are called upon to pay.
No argument has yet been produced to justify indirect taxation on moral or ethical grounds. It cannot be defended on moral or ethical grounds and it is exceedingly difficult to defend it on economic grounds. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) have proved conclusively that there is no economic justification for this duty and we feel that we are entitled to a fuller reply than that made by the Financial Secretary. We can appreciate his difficulty in replying to the speeches which were made against this duty, but I had hoped that some sort of justification would have been offered for its continuance. The burden of this tax upon old age pensioners is worthy of consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They only get their 10s. a week, and draw it from the Post Office which is invariably situated in a grocer's shop. Having drawn their pension, too small, from one counter, they turn to the other counter in order to purchase tea and sugar, and immediately they do so the tax gatherer is upon them and they are called upon to pay what in my opinion is an inhuman and unjust tax. This question, I agree, is raised annually, but that is no reason why it should he dismissed lightly, and I hope we shall continue to raise it every year until we have aroused public opinion, driven the present Chancellor of the Exchequer from office and put in his place a man who is prepared to deal out justice to these poor people.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The Financial Secretary did not make a long speech in reply to the Amendment, but he said something to which I think the Committee should give immediate attention. He replied to the point made
by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) and the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) in the previous Debate with regard to the ratio between Empire and foreign imported tea, and I understand that as a result of the Debate on the Budget Resolution that the Financial Secretary is to make some special inquiries into the matter. I should like to know the purpose of that inquiry; whether it is to provide for some future change in the amount of preference to be given to Empire tea, or whether it is simply to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Penryn? If the inquiry is intended to propose some scheme for increasing the taxation upon foreign imported tea as compared with Empire tea, then I think the Committee should be told about it now.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): There is no intention.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have the assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is no intention of increasing the amount of preference——

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of the taxation.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The correction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is significant, and that is why I am asking the Financial Secretary to tell us the purpose of the inquiry that is to be set up; whether it is a move in the direction of increasing the preference in regard to Empire tea?

Mr. SAMUEL: When the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) raised this question on May 1st, 1928, I said this:
I will look into the facts when the Budget discussions are over."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1928; col. 1566, Vol. 216.]

Mr. ALEXANDER: When I read in cold type what the Financial Secretary has said I shall feel satisfied that I have done right in raising this point this afternoon. The figures which have been quoted in the Debate are very misleading. They are taken for different periods and they are not always trade periods, and it is very important when you are dealing with the question of the total imports at any time from any part of the world of a commodity like tea that
you should take the trade year. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will oblige me by taking into consideration with the figures in the Trade and Navigation Accounts, figures given by Messrs. McMeekin & Co. in their trade report—(I have the figures here)—which show quite conclusively that although there has been an increase in imports from sources like Java and Sumatra, there has also been an increase from British East. Indies and Ceylon. The total figures of imports are, in 1922, 255,000,000 lbs.; in 1924, 294,000,000 lbs., and in 1927, 304,000,000 lbs. The increase in tea imported from Ceylon between 1922 and 1927 is from 111,000,000 lbs. to 142,000,000 lbs., and in the case of Java and Sumatra the increase is from 38,000,000 to 75,000,000 lbs. There is nothing to be alarmed about in that, and it is only natural when you have a serious decrease in the purchasing power of a large number of the population that if there is a cheaper tea to be obtained for sale as a separate commodity or for blending that the community should have access to it. I hope the Financial Secretary, therefore, will not be led into a false position by the inquiry he is making.
It has been mentioned that the imports for the first few months of this year have gone down, but if hon. Members will read "The Times Trade Supplement" for 23rd June, they will see that the stocks of tea in the bonded warehouses at the end of May amounted to 195,000,000 lbs., as compared with 157,000,000 this time last year. Apparently, we are considerably up in stocks of tea in the bonded warehouses. There is also the remark later on in the Trade Supplement of the "Times" that "consumption lags." For the last five years there has been a steady increase in the consumption of tea, even taking the basis of the consumption per head of population. Five years ago, it was 8.6 lbs. per head of population, whereas to-day it is rather more than 9 lbs. per head. But at the present time it looks as if consumption is lagging a little. This may arise from two causes. One undoubtedly is the accumulation of cheap tea. Poor people do not always want to buy a cheap class of tea, although they want to buy tea cheap. They want tea which will be most economical in its use. The other reason is the actual decrease in the purchasing power
of the people, and, having regard to trade figures and the general position of the population, there is a strong case to be made out this year for a reduction in the amount of the Tea Duty.
There is another point to which I should like to draw attention; not the consumer's side of this question, but the benefit it would be to trade generally if this duty could be actually removed. It is not only the burden of the tax which keeps up the price of tea, but it is the cost to the trade in maintaining machinery to deal with the bonded warehouses and the Customs. Anyone who knows anything about the tea trade will understand that you have to keep a whole staff of people running about here and there dealing with samples before and after sales, and the leading members of the trade have been agitating for years that this position should be done away with entirely. The easiest way to do that is to get rid of the duty. The operation of a duty of this kind interferes with the ordinary flow of trade and commerce, and I ask the Financial Secretary to pay some attention to this point. The tea trade, also, has reason to complain of the treatment it often gets from the Customs officials. I have here a catalogue containing a note of one parcel of tea which was condemned by the Customs authorities on its arrival in this country as not being a proper type of tea for consumption. When inquiry was made as to why the tea was condemned no reply was given. The only answer was, "Take it away." No technical advice is given, nor is any report made, but the next stage is that the tea is exported and then re-imported and accepted by the very people who had refused it on the previous occasion. Restrictions and interferences of this kind increase the cost of tea, which has to be passed on to the consumer.
When you consider that the total revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets from this duty is between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 surely the right hon. Gentleman will not say that it is so absolutely essential to the financial structure of this country that he cannot give partial or complete relief to the taxpayer who has to bear this burden. When we remember the way in which he has a special "down" on the housewife one is still more inclined to press for a reduction in the amount of the Tea Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer not only
refuses to reduce the Tea Duty, but he puts a tax on breakfast cups and saucers, on cutlery, and now on enamel hollow-ware——

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows that he is beginning to transgress.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I submit I am not transgressing at all. I am only supporting my case for a reduction of a specific tax on the housewife in the matter of the Tea Duty by citing other instances of new and aggressive taxation which has been placed on the housewife. When you add these three taxes to the taxes placed on buttons and cottons and laces, which the housewife has to use when making her home made dress and also the tax on stockings——

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is repeating his offence.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We did not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to repeat his offence by taxing the housewife in all these matters. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to multiply the taxes on the housewife, surely we are entitled to cite them in support of our case for a reduction of the specific duty on tea. The Financial Secretary in his speech carefully avoided answering the real burden of the case put by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) and I expect therefore a heavy vote against the Government on this issue.

Mr. TOWNEND: I should not have risen but for the observations of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, which illustrate the fact that the Department speaks with two voices. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) urged that the six millions or seven million pounds which is raised by the duty on tea should be used for the purpose of relieving the heavy burdens now placed upon the housewife, and in his reply the Financial Secretary said that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had these millions to spare he could do something rather better with it, put it to a more deserving cause, than relieve the housewife in relation to this particular commodity. But, surely, the Financial Secretary has forgotten the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) when he moved this same Amendment 12 months
ago? On that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the desire of the hon. Member for Huddersfield found an echo in his heart, and that the hon. Member could rest assured that the heavy burden which the duty on tea imposed would receive a very high place in the order of priority when ultimately relief was to be given. How does the Financial Secretary reconcile that statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his own statement this afternoon, that there is very little chance of any such relief even if the money were available?
A further statement made by the Financial Secretary implied that he has not yet appreciated the seriousness of the burden which this duty imposes on the family. He said that, after all, the figures were purely relative. He said that the duty amounted to only 2s. 7d. per head per annum, and that that was a very small amount for the ordinary consumer of tea. But averages do not present the whole picture. The 2s. 7d. average includes a fairly large and influential section of the community who as a rule do not take anything like the average amount of tea or anything like as much as is consumed by the working classes of the community. The Financial Secretary's reference reminds me of a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer who now holds a very important position as head of a banking concern. That Chancellor was taking a hypothetical case, and said, "We will take the case of a man who earns 35s. per week." "No, 45s. a week," said an interrupter. "Ah," said the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, "there is very little difference indeed between 35s. and 45s. per week." Of course, those were pre-War figures.
The point I want to emphasise is this: Just as in that day the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not appreciate the importance of these very small sums as between worker and worker, so to-day there is a refusal by the Financial Secretary to appreciate the relative and serious importance of being compelled to pay 2s. 7d. per head because of the Tea Duty. Most of the workers have tea for breakfast, for dinner and for tea, and inasmuch as most of them find that tea is cheaper than beer, they have tea for supper too. Other sections of the community may drink tea only once a day. You have
only to enter the yard of a factory or workshop in the North and see the procession of jugs for hot water at breakfast, dinner and tea time, in order to appreciate that it is not an average of 2s. 7d. with which you are faced. Although I have not much hope than the Chancellor of the Exchequer will meet us on this particular request, yet I ask him to appreciate the fact that this burden of 17s. per family per annum would buy a good pair of boots and is therefore of importance. When once again the Chancellor is reviewing the whole question I hope that he will approach it as generously and as tenderly as in the present Budget he is approaching far less deserving sections of the community.

Mr. R. MORRISON: It is fairly obvious, as the Financial Secretary has spoken, that no concession is likely. The Financial Secretary in a few sentences brushed the whole question aside as if he could not be bothered with consideration of the arguments put forward, and as if the matter was hardly worth troubling about. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sits there and does not seem sufficiently interested to contribute a single word to the Debate. It occurred to me that probably this is the last occasion upon which anybody in any Government will treat this question in the offhand way in which it has been treated this afternoon, because after this year the greater voting power in this country will be in the hands of women, and this is a very important question from the woman's point of view. If the present Financial Secretary is fortunate enough to occupy the same position next year, he will probably find that he will have to give some better reasons for refusing the request than he has given to-day. He brushed the claim aside by saying that it would cost from £6,000,000 to £7,000,000. Our point is that this £7,000,000 is a direct burden on the poor. As the income of a person falls so the percentage of that income that is spent on tea arises.
Speaking from memory, I believe that the increase in the consumption of tea last year was something like 7,000,000 lbs. and of that 7,000,000 lbs. about 6,000,000 lbs. was represented by increased sales of co-operative societies, which almost entirely serve working-class people. That shows that the increased
consumption was in an article mainly used by the working classes. The Financial Secretary said that the £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 could be used in many better ways. When asked what were those ways, he did not reply. He was directly contradicting what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said a year ago. Last year, on a similar Amendment, the Chancellor said that a reduction of the Tea Duty was an excellent purpose, that he was very sympathetic to it, and that as soon as he could afford it a reduction might take place in the duty. The Financial Secretary to-day mentioned sugar and talked a little vaguely about tobacco. I think that from now onwards, in the political life of this country, questions such as this, of a direct tax on the housewife and on working people, will require much more attention than the Government have seen fit to give it this afternoon.

Mr. GROVES: We treat this Amendment lightly because it appears to be an annual event. Any tax on the poor is something which should call for protests from these benches and the benches below the Gangway. I was interested in what was said by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) about the political record of hon. Members below the Gangway when they had an opportunity of relieving the country of this duty. It was a phasing feature of the Budget in 1924 that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer without any hesitation reduced the Tea Duty by 4d. I suggest to the Chancellor that if he wants to get the genuine gratitude of the poor he should take some interest at once in this matter. Anyone who listened to the light-hearted speech of the Financial Secretary—who said that it was only £6,000,000 or £7,000,000—might have reached the conclusion that £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 did not matter The area that I represent is mainly inhabited by very poor people. The families for the most part average more than three children and two adults. It is all very well for the Government to deal with the population from the point of view of averages, but averages do not apply in an area where the families comprise, in addition to the parents, five, six, and possibly seven or eight, children. It is true, I believe, that the average family in this country consumes about 40 lbs. of tea per year. But the poorer the
family the more tea is needed and bought, and the larger the number of children in a family the more tea is bought. Therefore, the greater the family the greater the incidence of the tax upon the family. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should consider the question from that point of view.
5.0 p.m.
Where there are areas of poor people with large families the Tea Duty bears unduly upon these people, as compared with the general incidence of taxes in the country. I would remind the Committee that in West Ham a large section of the people are unemployed and some of them are in receipt of Poor Law relief. Single men get no relief and married people are only getting about 1s. per day. I use this fact as an illustration to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he realises how in these areas which are necessitous, where a very large section of the people are very poor and have been out of work a long time, and who have no relief from the Poor Law guardians, or only relief on an inadequate scale, these people are to purchase the necessities of life, unless he comes to their assistance and removes some of the taxation upon them. A reduction of the Tea Duty gives an opportunity for hon. Members on the Government side to satisfy their consciences when they meet their constituents. Every hon. Member associated with the Government, when he was seeking the suffrage of his electorate, said that he would work for the relief of indirect taxation and to procure a free breakfast table, and no doubt those same hon. Members will make the same promises when next they seek the support of their electors.
It is because I believe that many hon. Members opposite are as sincere on this question as I am that I appeal to them to give us their support. In a little while the Division bells will be ringing and I am afraid that hon. Members opposite, instead of keeping their promises to the electors, will vote against us. I would, however, appeal to them to assist us in the Lobby, and by so doing they would be making a sincere endeavour to take the taxation off the poorest classes of the community. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us that this remis-
sion of taxation would include also cocoa, coffee and chicory. We are extremely pleased to hear that statement; it gives additional weight to our plea that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take immediate steps to reduce the taxation upon tea, cocoa, coffee and chicory, because it bears unduly upon the working people of this country.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: In the last Parliament, when the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) was dissatisfied with the reduction in the Tea Duty made by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) to 4d. in the lb. and he desired to make the reduction 6d., the hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Erskine) said nothing then about the halfpenny a week, but went into the Lobby and voted for the further reduction believing, as we all do, that the Tea Duty, being a flat-rate duty, and tea being consumed throughout the whole community, falls with special heaviness upon the poor people. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for St. George's can make his speech if and when he catches the eye of the Chairman, and we shall be glad to hear him. Of course, we all know that he is an expert on cooking, and I expect he can make a very good cup of tea, so that he can speak with authority as to the comparative incidence of the tax. It is interesting to notice that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to give away something of the duty on tea he refers to tea as a necessity, but when he is unable to give away anything he refers to tea as a comfort. He called tea a comfort two years ago. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley called it a necessity.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have met us in this matter and give a reduction of the Tea Duty, he would not have left it to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to-day to defend the duty; he would have stood before the brass-bound Treasury Box and would have explained with eloquence, vim and fire the great benefit that he was conferring upon the community as a whole, and especially upon the poor people in the community. There is a special case for the reduction of the Tea Duty at the present time, because the trend of wages has been downward in recent years. While there has been much
talk about the incidence of direct and indirect taxation, the question is whether that section of the community which has to bear the bulk of the burden of indirect taxation is able to pay or not. We believe that in regard to taxation the Chancellor of the Exchequer, being a stalwart upholder of the British Navy, ought to take the motto of the British Navy as his motto, "Women and Children First." If he agrees to the Amendment and reduces the Tea Duty, he will be putting women and children first. Therefore, we support the Amendment.

Mr. KELLY: We were told by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the Tea Duty represents 2s. 7d. per head per annum of the total population. I do not know how that conclusion is arrived at. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary thinks that in the homes of the people who are in receipt of low wages in the engineering trade—the 35s. a week man, which is all in, with no bonus attached—that this Tea Duty is not a serious item in the household. It is also a serious item in the case of the Government employé who receives 14s. or 17s. a week, with a bonus which probably brings the amount up to nearly £1, in some cases. At the present time when the Government talk so much about relieving industry and helping industry forward, they are maintaining this imposition on the low-paid workers. One has great doubt as to their good faith. I hope that we shall hear from the Financial Secretary how the average of 2s. 7d. per head per annum is arrived at. Probably the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is not quite sure, but I suppose it is the kind of statement that is good enough to go out from the Conservatives that this 2s. 7d. is a mere nothing compared to the relief which is being given in other directions, and that one need not trouble much about it. It cames rather badly to the low-paid workers who have to fall back upon tea and to use it for most meals. If the Government would ask some of the women in the employment of their various Departments what their view is upon this matter they would find that instead of the Tea Duty being a charge of 2s. 7d. per head per annum, it is a great deal more than that in its effect upon their own families.
One would expect that a Government who stage that they have a desire to relieve the position of the people would not come forward with a determination to keep a burden upon the poor and the suffering in order to lessen the burden upon the better-to-do. That has been the position in the Budgets of the Conservative Party for some years. As the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) pointed out, in every Conservative Budget we have had for some years the domestic side of life has been taxed more heavily. If there has been any easement at all, it has been easement for those who can well afford to continue to pay the amount of taxation that they were formerly asked to pay, and even a greater amount. I hope that there may be some hon. Members still to be found in the Conservative party who think enough about their constituents and the home life of their constituents to join us in the Lobby in support of this proposed easement of the burden of the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to satisfy his conscience that he can afford this year to continue the imposition of this burden on tea, but is speaks very badly for him that when he is talking about relieving industry he still burdens the poor workers and the low-paid workers by this Tea Duty.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: I have listened very carefully to the Debate and I have been struck by the fact that the idea that tea is a food has, at last, been dropped. We have heard tea referred to to-day as a comfort and as a stimulant, but I do not think that it has been referred to as a food, and that this iniquitous Government is determined to keep a tax on the food of the people. Practically, every speech which has been made by Members of the Labour party has expressed a desire to reduce the amount of the duty with a view to encouraging the consumption of tea amongst the working classes. There can be no doubt that at the present time the working classes of this country drink by far too much tea and that that tea is not properly made. The working classes instead of using tea in the proper manner as an infusion once or twice a day make a decoction of it, and the blacker it is the better the tea from their point of view. The longer the tea is stewed and the more bitter it tastes, the
better they think the tea is. The speeches this afternoon from hon. Members of the Labour party have been in the direction of encouraging women and children to drink more tea. That would be the effect of the lowering of the Duty. If the Tea Duty is reduced, naturally tea will be cheaper and more tea will be drunk.
We have been told of families who have tea three or four times a day. That, from the health point of view, is bad for the community. Such people simply become nervous dyspeptics. What the future of this race is going to be if the people of this country are to be brought up on stewed tea, drunk four times a day, I cannot think. Members of the Socialist party would be acting more as friends of the workers of this country if they would discourage the working classes from drinking so much tea. If they would encourage them to drink cocoa it would be far better, because they would be doing something to encourage the use of milk, which would be all to the good for the health of the community. I am anxious that less tea should be drunk in this country by the working classes and that such tea as is drunk should be properly made. If that course were adopted, I have not the slightest doubt that it would result in a great improvement in the health of the workers.

Mr. PALING: We have had two arguments put forward by Members of the party opposite, one of which is that they want this money, but that it is not much. The other argument is that the duty is a good duty, because people drink too much tea. We ought to make the tax prohibitive, I suppose, and if next year the Chancellor wants more money, he will probably thank the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) for suggesting this source of income. I was interested in the very short statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who talked about the decrease in the percentage of British Empire tea consumed, and who said that we are going to have an inquiry into that question. To the first hon. Member who asked what that inquiry meant, he said he did not mean an inquiry, and he promptly tried to get out of what he had said. I would like to know what is behind all this. I noticed that when he was talking his own Front Bench, including the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, were very much disturbed. They were very anxious to get the Financial Secretary down, and I imagined there was another crisis arising, such as arose on the question of mechanical lighters. I want to know what the Financial Secretary meant by an inquiry and if it is possible that we are to have some preferential treatment. There is something hehind what he said, but I suppose it is not wise to make it known; perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer is hiding it for his next Budget.
The Financial Secretary also said that this Tea Duty amounted to only about 2s. 7d. per head per annum for the people of this country, that that is a very small amount, but that as, in the aggregate, it makes some £6,000,000 or £7,000,000, the Government cannot afford to drop it. That is a typically Tory argument. Here is an hon. Member who gets as many thousands a year as a working man gets pounds or scores of pounds, and to whom a tax on tea of 20s. would not make any difference, and looking at it from that point of view the hon. Member argues in the same strain about the working class people, that it is only a small amount, that they can well afford it, and that to talk about it being a hardship is nonsense. That was the tone of his argument. At a meeting in Yorkshire last week I heard a statement by an official of the. Yorkshire Miners' Association to the effect that the average wage of thousands of Yorkshire miners this year has been 29s. a week. There are lots of those families, with six in family, and to them, at 2s. 7d. a head, it makes about 15s. or 16s. per year.
That may not sound much, but it is over 1 per cent. of the total income. It is about half a week's wages on tea alone, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, who both have better incomes than the average working man's income, had to pay a tax on tea or any other commodity which was equal on the average to half a week's income. I wonder what they would say. The Chancellor would not sit quiet then; he would be thumping the Treasury Box hard. I suggest that 15s. to 16s. a year in the present circumstances of scores and thousands of working class families is a very considerable amount. An hon. Member has said that it would buy a
pair of boots. It has to buy more than one pair of boots, and when the Financial Secretary gets up the next time, if they allow him, I hope he will not argue on those lines, that 16s. a year does not matter. It matters so much that we want to get this duty reduced, knowing that it will be a real contribution and a real help in the difficult circumstances in which so many working class people find themselves at the present time.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I should like to join in the very strong protests that have been made concerning this very important tax. I consider that the Labour movement would be failing very seriously in its duty if it were not strongly to protest every time on this important issue. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) referred to an omission of any reference to tea as a food. No one has said that it is an actual food, but what we do say is that it is unfortunately passing, and has to pass, as a food with a great body of working people whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented in the City of Dundee for many years. Those Members of his own party who claim, and correctly claim, that they represent working class constituencies, if there was a genuine anxiety concerning the working class struggle on their part, would be up from their benches on this question every time, urging it most strenuously, because it is a deplorable fact that so many of the workers of this country have to confine their diet to this particular commodity.
No one will say that it is all that is requisite for their physical vitality and the strenuous labours which they have to undergo in earning a living, but it is a fact that the Government resolutely persist in imposing this tax when such appalling conditions are prevalent. Especially with the present conditions in the mining industry, it would have been a very gracious thing for the Government on this occasion to have emphasised their appreciation of that struggle and to have shown their practical sympathy with the workers by relieving them of this taxation. Some hon. Members have referred to the Government as if they were connoisseurs of tea. I would not guarantee that any of them were particular connoisseurs in that direction, but, in another
direction, I might say they were specialists. When you try to conjure up a picture of a working-class family gathered round the table, it is a question of tea morning, noon, afternoon, and evening. Why? Because they have a job to make both ends meet, because they have to try and find an economical way of getting an existence, if not a livelihood. The reduction of this duty would be paltry in the sense of meeting the crucial conditions under which these people are suffering, but it would be to some extent a practical recognition of their struggles; and I join most heartily in protesting against the imposition of this tax.

Mr. PILCHER: I am not concerned to defend a duty on tea as such. It is, I suppose, a necessary evil, but I would draw attention to this fact, that it is very remarkable indeed that, with a Budget of £800,000,000 and a dead weight of post-War charges of nearly £400,000,000, we should have a Tea Duty-lower than we had in 1914, when we had a Budget of £200,000,000. I suggest that a Tea Duty of 4d. with an £800,000,000 Budget under a Conservative Government, as compared with a Tea Duty of 5d. in 1914 under a Liberal Government, is suggestive of the superiority of Conservative practice over Liberal promises as to a free breakfast table. But it is not on that point that I really want to address the Committee.
References have been made to some remarks which fell from me during the Committee stage of the Tea Resolution a few weeks ago. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said, I then attempted to draw attention to the really remarkable increase which has been going on since the War in the consumption of non-British tea, and this, in spite of the preference it was first given in 1919. In giving those figures again, I will answer a point which I could not answer then, and say that these figures include the exports from this country to the Irish Free State In 1919 the consumption—not the importation, including subsequent exportation, but the consumption—in the United Kingdom was 259,000,000 lbs. of Indian tea, and in 1927 the consumption was 249,000,000 lbs., a decrease of 10,000,000 lbs., although there was a 1s. 6d. preference operative for the first time during that period of eight years. With
regard to Ceylon tea, there is a slight increase. In 1919 the consumption was 107,000,000 lbs., and in 1927 it was 111,000,000 lbs., but that is a very small increase considering how long-standing that great industry is and what an important factor it is in the prosperity of our Eastern Dominions.
Now I will take the figures for the importation of tea from Java. In 1919 it was 19,000,000 lbs., and in 1927, 64,000,000 lbs. That is very striking, and I suggest that it is a subject which should attract attention at the present time, when we are doing everything in our power, where we can, and when no hardship is involved for the consuming public, to increase Imperial trade. Most of this Java tea is undoubtedly used for blending, and that was a point that I put to the Financial Secretary. I think that the consumers of tea in this country, knowing that there is a preference given to tea from Imperial sources, suppose that they are drinking, generally speaking, tea from India or Ceylon, and I make the suggestion, and have sent it in writing to the Financial Secretary, that some encouragement should be given to people who put up tea which is entirely British and who proclaim the fact on their packets.

Mr. BROAD: On a point of Order. Is this in order? Would it not require legislation?

The CHAIRMAN: I have followed the hon. Member with some doubt. If he were proposing some fresh tax, it would be out of order.

Mr. PILCHER: I was not proposing any fresh tax. We are discussing a Clause of the Finance Bill of this year which refers to a Section of the Finance Act, 1919, which provided this preference. This Section continues the preference as well as the duty, and I am suggesting that the preference is inoperative, and that we should do all that we can to make it really effective, either through the Empire Marketing Board or by some other means. The tea trade and the Departments concerned should consider, before it is too late, the remarkable expansion in the consumption, probably unknown to the consumers, of this non-Empire tea.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: While I do not want to underrate the importance of the question which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher), I should like to refer to something which I consider of greater importance, namely, the burden of this duty upon the working classes. The hon. Member made too big a claim for his party when he endeavoured to compare the doings of the Liberal party in pre-War days with the doings of the Conservative party of to-day. I would remind him that the reduction of the duty on tea to 4d. was not due to the activities of the Conservative party; it was a benefit conferred on the country by the Labour party. Although the claim has been made by the hon. Gentleman regarding the weightiness of the Budget—which I think was an excuse for a Chancellor of the Exchequer in difficulties to enable him at some later date to go back on that 4d.—I want to insist again that we are really at a time when this duty ought to be entirely taken off. Several of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to the fact that there has been a general increase in the burdens of taxation upon working-class budgets during the last two or three years, and that in itself ought to give special force to a reconsideration of this matter. Three years ago, when I spoke on this matter, the Chancellor classified the Tea Duty as a tax upon a basic comfort. That is an unfortunate expression, which was invented by a Chancellor of the Exchequer in difficulties when he did not want to admit that this is for all practical purposes a tax upon the necessities of the people.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Royton (Dr. Vernon Davies) has said that the drinking of tea by the working classes is going a great deal too far, that they have tea three or four times a day, and that it is always on the hob getting black and full of poison. Why is it allowed to get into that condition? Because the general diet of a considerable part of the working class in this country is so monotonous that tea being one of the cheaper beverages, is absolutely necessary for them in order to make their diet palatable. If the hon. Gentleman was having his bread and butter or bread and jam day after day, and meal after meal, as many children of the working
class, and many mothers in his own district of Lancashire, have it, he would be very glad to have tea regarded as a necessity. I suggest to him that the continuance of this duty on tea is one of the reasons why the working class leave the tea on the hob from breakfast until dinner time, and from dinner time until tea time, using up the dregs of a former meal in order to make the tea go further. The Conservative party is responsible for that bad habit. If the tea were made cheaper and if the duty were removed, it is very probable that the housewife would make tea which would do no harm, and from which the tannin could be kept entirely away. If the Conservative doctors in this House were really keen about the health of the working classes they would support us in the demand that we now make for the entire removal of this duty.
It is not entirely right to suggest, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury suggested, that this burden is, on an average, 2s. 7d. per head on working class budgets. Among the type of workers to whom I have been referring, where tea is required so frequently to make their diet palatable, the amount paid is much above 2s. 7d. per head; and, when you multiply that by the family index of five or six persons, it makes an average burden of from 15s. to 25s. a year per family. If the Conservative party take into account the increased burdens that they have put on the workers in recent years and they really want to do their duty by these people, then they must realise that a very special case has been made out; and I ask the Chancellor again whether he cannot reconsider that phrase, "the basic comforts of the people," and see that for a considerable number of people tea is more than a comfort—it is a necessity. I hope that even yet it will be found possible to remove this burden from the workers.

Mr. HARDIE: I have been brought to my feet by the remarks of the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies). He has been talking about the dangers of tea drinking, but, being illogical, he forgets his other speeches. It is not so long ago that he was telling us about the poisonous system of vaccination which means getting the pus from a calf and pumping it into the body. Then he tells us about the poison in tea and what takes place. The
hon. Member also told us that calves could be sold for eating after the pus had been taken. There is more danger from that kind of poisoning than from the tannin in tea. The relation between a vaccinated calf and tea with tannin in it——

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that we are not on the Vote on the Ministry of Health for Medical Education.

Mr. MacLAREN: If the hon. Member is arguing from the medical point of view, surely he is entitled to make a comparison.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was making a comment as to a medical man's views on vaccination and comparing them with his views on tea poisoning. That is hardly a relevant argument.

Mr. HARDIE: There is a medical expert sitting on the other side of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the person of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and he would be the first to correct me were I mistaken in my statement regarding these poisons, for he, being trained in the Glasgow University, knows what I am talking about. With regard to what has been said about the tannin in tea, it is very bad, but it has not had the horrible effects that we have had from vaccination. If tea be such a poison as it is represented to be, there should be such a duty on it that people could not buy it. That would be the real logic of the situation. Tea is like medicine; it is good for other people but not good for the doctors. I do not suppose that my hon. Friend has had a glass of water for many years. I cannot speak about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is, I think, a water drinker. We notice that when the Budget is introduced the Chancellor of the Exchequer always drinks water; it may be coloured, but that perhaps is due to the water-pipes being rusty. On the question of tea and its relation to the working class, it is very strange for a medical man to take the position which is taken up by the hon. Member for Royton, but I suppose it does not really matter how much poison there is in tea, so long as you get a tax from the people. Evidently, if the population is too great, the way to get rid of them is to do the tannin trick.
It is a strange thing that tea should become the subject of taxation; if we wanted to get a real basis for a tax, we should not tax something that was for the good of the people; but should tax what injured the people. I would never drink black tea, but the reason has not been given by the medical men why black tea is so often found in working-class homes. The proper way of making tea is to pour boiling water over the tea leaves, and then pour away the leaves, but working-class homes with a small income cannot afford to make tea as it ought to be made, without tannin. This is a poverty question in which we see the poison of poverty compelling the taking of another poison in order to spread out a teaspoonful of tea. There are hundreds of thousands of homes where, when the stewing of the tea does not make it black enough, they put in bicarbonate of soda to make it stronger, so that it will go a little further. Why do not medical men come along with knowledge that will protect these people, and why did not the hon. Gentleman, with his skill in medicine, tell us about these practices and why they were used? It looks as if he is not really interested in the health of the people. It is to the interest of the medical profession if you have people ill——

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is going a great deal beyond the question of this duty.

Mr. HARDIE: In conclusion, let me say that if I could be sure that the Chancellor could be confined to nothing but black tannin tea for a fortnight, then, instead of seeing him sitting there as we often see him, we should see the effects of this black tannin poison—how it brings all the joints into prominence, how the jaws begin to take in, and how the hair——but of course that——

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member can continue on that line.

Mr. HARDIE: I was trying to point out the effects of tannin poison, a question which has been introduced in connection with the Tea Duty. I wish to show that if the Chancellor had that experience for a fortnight we might get a remission of the duty.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I remember an old saying of my mother's when I was a boy, that it was a little which suited the poor, and that it was a little which they got. I wish to remind the Chancellor of the. Exchequer that there are a great many people to whom a saving of 2s. 7d. a year in taxation would be of importance. Only recently I had a statement put into my hands giving particulars of a family comprising father, mother and eight children who had to subsist on 14s. for a whole week. I am wondering how much tea those people could get. A right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway was talking about Empire tea being better than other tea, and remarked that the Preference system was not working. It will not work right until the miners and other workers have something more than they earn at present with which to buy tea. Tea, bread and margarine are the staple food of the people in the county of Durham at the present time, and if 2s. 7d. per head in a family were handed back to those people it would mean three pairs of boots to the man and the woman whose case I have just mentioned to the House. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that ability to pay is made the basis of taxation. If that were done, then the poor would get a little more of what they are entitled to, and we could bring them some comfort. A very little extra charge makes itself felt in the homes of the workers; it is not felt in the houses of more well-to-do people. I want to have the Tea Duty entirely removed. That will give our people a chance of purchasing Empire tea if it is better than other tea. Cannot the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconsider his decision and accept an Amendment to bring the Tea Duty down to a penny? As the duty is at present levied, the poor people have to pay 4½d. duty on a pound of tea at 1s. 6d., and the rich pay 4d. on tea at 4s. a pound. At least the Chancellor ought to give the very poor the opportunity of having cheap, wholesome food, so that we may get rid of the practice of keeping the teapot stewing on the fireplace from morning till night.

Mr. BATEY: I want to support this Amendment, which I regard as one of the most important Amendments which could be moved to this Finance Bill. This Amendment raises a question which
affects the whole of the working class. I listened to the speech with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced is first Budget in 1925, and he said at that time that his object was the security of the homes of the wage-earners. I believe he meant that, and this afternoon we are giving him a chance of demonstrating his sympathy with the homes of the wage-earners. During the four years he has been in office the Chancellor has done nothing to carry out that promise. We could give him several instances to show how he has benefited his own class, but we cannot recall one instance in which he has done anything for the homes of the wage-earners. This afternoon he has an opportunity to redeem the promise he made in 1925.
I come from one of the distressed areas, where we have no fewer than 20,000 men who have to maintain their wives and families upon Poor Law relief. In the homes of those 20,000 men the price of tea is an important factor. There are no fewer than 40,000 men who have to maintain their wives and families on unemployment insurance benefit, and the cost of tea is an equally important matter to them. In addition, there are 50,000 or 60,000 men working in the coal mines, whose wages have been reduced. On an average, they are not earning more than 30s. per week. To those men, too, the price of tea is a most important consideration. We have said again and again when wages were coming down—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is largely responsible for assisting the coalowners to beat down miners' wages—that things would not be so bad if the cost of living had been reduced. But while the Chancellor was willing to lend all his influence towards pulling down wages, he has done nothing towards reducing the cost of living. We ask the Chancellor to take this one step which is now provided for him, and by agreeing to this Amendment show that he is prepared to do something to reduce the cost of living and so make the homes of the wage-earners a little bit happier and brighter than they are at present.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not because I have nothing to say that I have not so far intervened in this discussion; it is because I have nothing to give. But I should not like to allow the speeches which have been made to pass without a
very few words; and, in particular, the observation which was made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) calls for immediate correction. The hon. Member said nothing had been done to bring down the cost of living. When opening the Budget I gave figures, which had been carefully studied before they were made public, showing that, after taking into consideration the changes which have taken place in wages during the last four years, the reduction in the cost of living has added £100,000,000 a year to the purchasing power of the present wage-earners.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) made a statement in parenthesis, and the right hon. Gentleman has replied, but I do not think this point can be pursued.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I want to go no further than to prevent a statement obtaining currency that we are proceeding on the basis of there being no reduction in the cost of living.

Mr. BATEY: What have you done towards it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have given a very substantial reduction, and it is in relation to that substantial reduction that the Tea Duty must be considered. That duty was very largely reduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Val[...]ey (Mr. Snowden). If my memory is right, I think pressure was brought to bear upon him by some of the Liberal Members of that Parliament to make still larger reductions.

Mr. E. BROWN: And Conservative Members.

Mr. CHURCHILL: And they were supported by Conservative Members. But the right hon. Gentleman did not feel able to go further, though no doubt he would have liked to make a bigger reduction. I have endorsed his action year by year. I have made the full sacrifice of revenue which was entailed by the remission of duty he made in 1924. I think tea is actually taxed less now than it was before the War. After all the evils which have come upon us from the burden of taxation which is pressing upon so many classes, this old duty, a duty kept on long after the Sugar Duties were removed in bygone days, now stands
at a lower level than before the War. Nevertheless, I in no way recede from the view I have expressed on more than one occasion in these discussions, that the Tea Duty is one which anyone in a responsible position would gladly see mitigated or removed from our tariff list. It undoubtedly is a tax which affects the poorest people and on what I may call primary or basic comforts.
It is right and proper that the incidence of this tax should be carefully studied by the House of Commons, and that hon. Members should follow out its ramifications and be acquainted with the actual manner in which particular families are affected by it, and I should be very glad if it were in my power to make some revision of this duty, either total or partial, but I have, as I have had to say on other occasions, heavy expenses to meet. The mere fact that the reduction in the cost of living increases the purchasing power of the pound sterling tends to diminish my revenue as well as to reduce prices in all quarters. In addition to that, I have already in this Budget had to face the loss of the duty upon kerosene, and I have also to face the probability of greater expenditure in regard to the rating relief which we have in view than I originally allowed for. Having all these matters to take into account, I am bound to ask the Committee to excuse me from making any effort to fulfil their wishes this afternoon, although I can say with absolute candour and sincerity that I should be very glad indeed if it fell to my lot to deal with the Tea Duty by giving a substantial mitigation.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. BROAD: I am rather surprised at what I may call the audacity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He takes credit to himself for having let us off the thrashing he had promised us when he intended to put on the Kerosene Duty. He takes that to himself as a virtue. He says: "I promised you a thrashing, but I will let you off. You do not deserve it, but I promised it to you. Think how good I am." The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to some improvement in the standard of living of the workers, and he claims that as the one bright spot in a black record extending over four Budgets in which there has been abso-
lutely no concessions made to the working classes, although a good deal of relief has been given to the Super-tax payers with incomes of £400 per week. On the other hand, not a penny of consideration has been allowed to the working classes whose average wage is 40s. a week. All the economies which have been effected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer have ben done at the expense of the workers, whilst any benefits which the right hon. Gentleman has conferred have been given to the friends of hon. Members sitting behind him. I thought the right hon. Gentleman might at least consent to do something in the direction of retrieving such a black record by accepting this Amendment, but he has denied us even this small concession. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not only refused to reduce the taxation of the working classes but he has actually added to their burdens.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will confine his remarks to the Amendment now before the Committee.

Mr. BROAD: I thought that I might be allowed to make a comparison between the present Budget and the Budgets of other years, but I will now confine my remarks to the issue of the Tea Duty. The concession we are asking is a small one which is long overdue. In the last four Budgets introduced by the Tory Government, no consideration whatever has been paid to the working classes. The right hon. Gentleman once described this policy as "the open door at the public-house and the open hand at the Treasury"——

The CHAIRMAN: That may be a good argument on the Third Reading, but it is not a good argument in Committee.

Mr. BROAD: I am anxious to show the oppressive way in which this kind of taxation affects the workers. Tea is not only a refreshing drink at the breakfast table, the dinner table and the tea table, but there are many industries where the work is very hard in which the workers hour after hour want some kind of drink. At one time in these industries a boy used to go out and fetch in cans of beer on a broom handle, but that has been altered and the boy now brings in cans of tea. The workers in the cotton mills, as well as the workers in the underground warehouses of London, drink tea.
Many of these people will consume as much as half a pound of tea in the course of their work, and although our medical Friend below the Gangway (Dr. Davies) may draw attention to the evil done by tannin, I think he will agree with me that infinitely more harm used to be done to the working classes when they used to drink so much beer, although that used to bring profits to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I think we ought to realise that tea is a necessity of life to the working classes. The poor old ex-service man living with his wife and family finds that tea is the only thing that gives brightness to the family meals. Our old age

pensioners find, when they cannot have anything else, they can always have a cup of tea with their "bread and marg." I think this £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 which is raised by the Tea Duty should be taken off in order to balance some of the great concessions which have been made by the Tory Government in the shape of subsidies to their friends. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make the small concession we are asking to this long overdue demand of the working classes for the removal of the duty on tea.

Question put, "That the words 'in lieu of' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 229.

Division No. 179.]
AYES.
[6.8 p.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harney, E. A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Baker, Walter
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hoilins, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shinwell, E.


Bromfield, William
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Strauss, E. A.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Livingstone, A. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Edge, Sir William
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Varley, Frank B.


Fenby, T. D.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Forrest, W.
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Jasiah


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Owen, Major G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Buchan, John


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bennett, A. J.
Burman, J. B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Berry, Sir George
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Betterton, Henry B.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Blundell, F. N.
Carver, Major W. H.


Astor, Viscountess
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Atholl, Duchess of
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brass, Captain W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briscoe, Richard George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Balniel, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Christie, J. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Holt, Capt. H.
Preston, William


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Raine, Sir Walter


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ramsden, E.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)
Renter, J. R.


Cope, Major Sir William
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rentoul, G. S.


Couper, J. B.
Hurd, Percy A.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Iveagh, Countess of
Ropner, Major L.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Rye, F. G.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sandon, Lord


Dixey, A. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Loder, J. de V.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Drewe, C.
Looker, Herbert William
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Skelton, A. N.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lumley, L. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Ellis, R. G.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacIntyre, Ian
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fielden, E. B.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macquisten, F. A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gates, Percy
Malone, Major P. B.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tinne, J. A.


Golf, Sir Park
Margesson, Captain D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gower, Sir Robert
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Grotrian, H. Brent
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Watson, Rt. Hon W. (Carlisle)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Gunston, Captain D.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Hamilton, Sir George
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hammersley, S. S.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hartington, Marquess of
Oakley, T.
Withers, John James


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Womersley, W. J.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Perring, Sir William George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Hills, Major John Waller
Pilcher, G.



Hilton, Cecil
Pilditch, Sir Philip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Captain Bowyer and Captain Wallace.

Motion made, and Question, proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I should like to ask what the position is in regard to the condemnation of parcels of tea by the Customs officials as unfit for consumption. I would cite a case in which a parcel of tea, which had been condemned, was, as the result of the condemnation, re-exported to the Continent, and was then re-imported into this country,
accepted by the Customs authorities, and consumed in the ordinary way. That is bad enough, but the vexation and grievance of the trade is not that parcels of tea should be condemned—if tea is unfit for consumption it should be condemned; what they complain of is that, when they ask why a particular parcel has been condemned, and what is the matter with it, they get no answer except "Take it away." I know that in most cases the trade finds the Customs officials civil and obliging, and we are not making
any general complaint. The matter is, no doubt, a technical one, but anyone who has had a parcel of tea condemned is, surely, entitled to ask that some report or some reason should be given for the condemnation, and it certainly ought not to be possible, after a parcel has once been condemned, for it to be re-exported, re-imported, and passed by the Customs.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No one would quarrel at all with the contention of the hon. Gentleman that tea which has been condemned should not subsequently be admitted to this country after having been re-exported. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has some particular case in mind, but I feel sure that it must be an exception to the general manner in which our Customs Duties are administered. If it was due to an administrative error, I have no doubt, now that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to it, that steps will be taken to see that such an error shall not occur in the future. As to the question whether reasons should be given by the Customs authorities specifying the grounds on which they reject any particular parcel of tea, I am inclined to think that that would throw too great a burden upon the Customs officials.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in replying to my question, and I quite agree with him on the first point, but the second point is on very different ground. A parcel of tea is sent here quite bonâ fide in the ordinary course of trade, and the importer is simply notified that the Customs authorities refuse to allow it to be passed for consumption. He asks the reason, and the reply simply is, "Take it away; lose it, or de what you like with it"—there is no explanation. The tea may be good or it may be bad; the rejection may be due just to the whim or caprice of a Customs official, or, on the other hand, there may be a bonâ fide reason why the tea is not fit for consumption. Surely, the people who have purchased the tea ought to be given some definite reason, by those who have examined it on behalf of the Customs, showing why it cannot be accepted and must be condemned.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 113.

Division No. 180.]
AYES.
[6.21 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Christie, J. A.
Fielden, E. B.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Forrest, W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Clarry, Reginald George
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Astor, Viscountess
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gates, Percy


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cooper, A. Duff
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Cope, Major Sir William
Goff, Sir Park


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Couper, J. B.
Gower, Sir Robert


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bennett, A. J.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Berry, Sir George
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Betterton, Henry B.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Blundell, F. N.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeov[...]l)
Hamilton, Sir George


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hammersley, S. S.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brass, Captain W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Harney, E. A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Dixey, A. C.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hartington, Marquees of


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Drewe, C.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Buchan, John
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Burman, J. B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Ellis, R. G.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hills, Major John Waller


Carver, Major W. H.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hilton, Cecil


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N).
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Smithers, Waldron


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hurd, Percy A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hurst, Gerald B.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Iveagh, Countess of
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Oakley, T.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Jephcott, A. R.
Penny, Frederick George
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Perring, Sir William George
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Pilcher, G.
Tinne, J. A.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Power, Sir John Cecil
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Loder, J. de V.
Preston, William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Looker, Herbert William
Raine, Sir Walter
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ramsden, E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lumley, L. R.
Remer, J. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Rentoul, G. S.
Watts, Sir Thomas


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wells, S. R.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


MacIntyre, Ian
Ropner, Major L.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


McLean, Major A.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Macquisten, F. A.
Rye, F. G.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Withers, John James


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Womersley, W. J.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Margesson, Captain D.
Sandon, Lord
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)



Meyer, Sir Frank
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Skelton, A. N.
Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor Warrender.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Baker, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bondfield, Margaret
Hollins, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromfield, William
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Livingstone, A. M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Dunnico, H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Edge, Sir William
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Fenby, T. D.
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
Morris, R. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Potts, John S.



Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.

CLAUSE 2.—(Duties on hydrocarbon oils.)

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out the word "fourpence," and to insert instead thereof the words "one penny."
We have now reached the consideration of a Budget proposal which has aroused a good deal of interest and excited widespread condemnation. My Amendment is to reduce the Petrol Duty from 4. to 1d. That, of course, is a Parliamentary form involving, if it were carried, the withdrawal of the Duty. It has been imposed for a very specific purpose, in order to provide funds to finance the de-rating proposals of the Government. It is an exceptional thing to propose taxation and to allocate it for a specific purpose, and it is an unusual thing to single out one section of the community and to impose a tax burden upon it for the special benefit of another section of the community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has done that, and he has selected for this increased burden of taxation a class of the community and an industry already very heavily taxed. We cannot discuss this Petrol Duty without bearing in mind the reason why it has been proposed. The users of petrol are to be heavily taxed in order that relief may be given to what the Government call, rather indefinitely, the productive industries of the country. In proposing this tax the right hon. Gentleman is imposing an additional and a very heavy tax upon an industry which is just as necessary as any of the so-called productive industries which will come within the relief proposals of the Government.
It is a perfectly ridiculous thing to try to separate the productive from the distributive class of industry, because one without the other is altogether useless. What we have to consider is the price at which the commodity can be sold. I take it that the purpose of the Government's rating proposals is to reduce the cost of production in order that the price of the article may be reduced. The cost of distribution enters into the market price of the article just as much as the cost of production. This Petrol Duty will increase the cost of distribution, it is a real burden upon industry and, to some extent at any rate, it will nullify any advantage which might possibly go to
certain industries from the de-rating proposals of the Government. In considering this question we are too apt to think that a vast part of the petrol consumption is used in what we call pleasure motoring. I do not think that it the case at all. The vast number of pleasure motor cars on the road to-day are low-powered cars which may be getting something like 40 miles out of a gallon, but the heavy commercial vehicles have a very heavy petrol consumption, probably in very few cases exceeding 10 miles a gallon. This, too, seems to have been largely lost sight of, that petrol is not merely used in vehicles we see on the roads. An enormous amount of petrol is consumed for other commercial purposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a deputation waiting on him a few days ago. They enumerated a very large number of industries where petrol may be regarded as the raw material of the industry, and they pointed out that this tax will add very considerably to their costs of production and to their working expenses.
Let me come back for a moment to the statement I made in regard to the increased cost of transport which must certainly follow from the imposition of this duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in trying to justify the duty, referred to the lower price of petrol to-day compared with a year or two ago. Surely that is a very curious reason for imposing a duty on petrol and thereby increasing its price, because that statement was made in connection with another very remarkable statement. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the industrial greatness of this country has been built up on coal, but that coal was now being gradually superseded by oil. That is another curious reason, or attempted justification, for a Duty on petrol. To tax what is becoming, on his own admission, more and more the motive power of industry, is almost too ridiculous. What would have been said 150 years ago, when coal began to be used in the industrial revolution, if some Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed a tax on coal? That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.
As I said, the motor transport industry is already very heavily taxed and this, for a good many small men engaged in that business, will be the last straw. I had sent to me a letter from a man in Yorkshire who keeps a motor garage and
also runs a one-ton lorry, and he gave me some very remarkable figures. I was very much struck by them, and submitted them to an expert on these matters, and he told me they were rather on the under than the over side. The cost of running this one-ton lorry amounts, with the new Petrol Duty, to no less than £626 a year. The road tax is £59 8s. The new Petrol Duty will be £52 a year, insurance is £17 10s. a year; he needs a man and a lad to run the lorry, and their wages are £215; petrol consumption—10 gallons—is £156 a year, oil comes to £62, a set of tyres in the year—a moderate allowance—£32, and depreciation at 16 per cent. is £32. That makes a total of £626. These figures make no provision for breakdowns and repairs. He goes on to say:
I am one of the number who served through the War and who came back to try to make an honest living, but now I find it is almost impossible. Surely the high percentage of failures in this line of business confirms my conclusions, which are based on experience. Could the Chancellor be reminded that in this line of business, which has greatly increased since the War, there are large numbers of ex-service men, who ask no favours but only the right to live?
He adds that he wrote to me in preference to his own local Member, who is a railway director. So much in regard to the small man in the motor transport business. There are, of course, much larger concerns engaged. It is a mistake to assume that this increased duty on petrol will not enter into the cost of transport. It is doing so already, not only in the conveyance of commercial goods hut, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had to admit last week, in the charges that are being made by many omnibus companies. I believe he was present when I spoke on the Second Reading and produced a number of special halfpenny tickets marked "extra payment for the Petrol Tax imposition." I find this sort of thing is going on all over the country. I have just had handed to me by an hon. Friend a large number of letters which practically cover the whole country. In some districts they are not only charging the extra halfpenny, but much more. The Thames Valley Traction Company which, I believe, covers the whole of the Thames Valley between London and Oxford, have issued this official notice:
Pending the alteration of a revised fare list, the following increases in all fares will take place on and from Thursday, 17th May, ½d. on all fares up to and including 5d., 1d. on all fares over 6d., including return fares.
That increase represents between 300 and 400 per cent. on the cost of working imposed by the Petrol Duty. Therefore we are getting what we always get when taxes of this description are imposed. They take out of the pockets of the public a great deal more than they bring into the Exchequer. We have been discussing for the last two hours the burden of the Tea Duty and I associate myself with everything that has been said by my hon. Friends upon that, but this increased Petrol Duty in respect of motor omnibuses alone is a heavier impost than even the Tea Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his two last Budgets has appropriated something over £20,000,000 of the Road Fund which had been specially contributed by the owners of motor vehicles for the purpose of road improvement and road maintenance. He has also taken for general revenue purposes a certain proportion of annual licence duties on what he calls luxury motor cars. Those licences are very heavy. They are particularly heavy upon commercial vehicles. They were originally imposed under an agreement between the Treasury and the owners of motor vehicles so that the proceeds should be devoted for the purposes I have just mentioned, namely, road improvement and road maintenance. The Chancellor violated that agreement when he raided the Road Fund.
What is going to be the effect of this increased Petrol Duty taking it in conjunction with the raiding of the Road Fund which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has carried through during the last year or two? The users of commercial vehicles and motor transport are going to get no advantage in improved roads from this tax. It is going, not to their advantage, but to the advantage of others. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will say, as he has said upon a great many occasions, that we have the best roads in the world and that no further additional expenditure is necessary to keep them in that perfect condition. I am not discussing the Road Fund, but I am pointing out its relation to this Petrol Duty. We are putting an additional
burden upon these people, and they will derive no advantage either direct or indirect from it, because in the rating proposals of the Government even their garages are not to get any advantage. Even the workshops in which motor vehicles are repaired are not to be regarded as productive works. Well, if a motor car or a motor vehicle cannot be repaired it will soon cease to be an aid to production.
The further point I want to mention in this connection, in reply to the oft-repeated claim of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we have the best roads in the world, is this. As a matter of fact, from one point of view we have the worst roads in the world. We have the most dangerous roads in the world. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact? Does he know that in this country there are 11 motors per mile of roads, and that there is no country in the world which approaches within 50 per cent of that figure. The United States has seven—that comes nearest—and France has only two. We have, therefore, not the best roads in the world; we have the most dangerous roads in the world. Between 5,000 and 6,000 people were killed last year by motor accidents upon the roads of this country. If it were necessary to impose additional taxation upon these vehicles, then the receipt of that taxation ought to have been devoted to the improvement of our roads, making them more adaptable for the increased traffic which is appearing upon them every day, and thereby lessening the danger.
We oppose this Petrol Duty to-day, apart altogether from our opposition to the purpose to which it is to be put; we oppose it because it is tax imposed upon one small class of the community—I mean small in proportion to the population—not for their benefit, for they derive no benefit whatever from it, but for the benefit of another class of the community. We oppose it because it is an illustration of one of the worst cases of indirect taxation. It has every one of the evils of indirect taxation. As I pointed out just now, it is taking out of the pockets of the people who pay it far more than it will bring to the revenue of the State. We oppose it because it is a burden which will not ultimately and finally rest upon those
who consume the taxed petrol. It will enter into the cost of transport, and it will result in increased fares, and the working people of this country are, of course, the overwhelming majority of the people who use the motor omnibuses on the roads. A large proportion of the people within the Income Tax-paying range own motor cars, and therefore very seldom use a public omnibus. Thus this tax will finally be paid mainly by the working people of this country, and that amounts, on the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to £14,000,000, I think, this year, and he expects ultimately to get £20,000,000 a year from it. Therefore, that means £20,000,000 a year additiona[...] taxation mainly upon the working people of this country that will be added to the £25,000,000 a year of other indirect taxation which has been imposed during the past three years by the right hon. Gentleman. These are some of the reasons—my hon. Friends behind will give others—why we submit this Amendment. I am confident that the feeling of injustice against this duty is shared by practically every Member of this House, and if hon. Members were free to vote according to their intelligence and their real appreciation of the facts of this case, there would be no doubt at all about the overwhelming support that this Amendment would receive.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has directed the Committee to an Amendment which would certainly, if it were accepted, secure us a combination of the worst of all possible courses, and all the arguments which he used against the tax would be continued in principle, but the advantage to the Revenue would be virtually destroyed. I can understand direct opposition to the Duty on Petrol, but to say that we should impose a duty of a penny upon petrol is in my opinion most unhelpful, and, if I may say so without offence, to set up the whole machinery of this duty merely to place a penny upon it would be obviously futile. The Amendment would involve a loss to the Revenue of £8,750,000 this year and £11,250,000 next year. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman felt that the proposal which he was making was so unjustifiable in itself that he considered it necessary to state in a perfectly candid manner, a
brutal manner, that what he wished to do was to wreck the tax, why go through this farce of reducing it from 4d. to 1d.? I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to wreck this tax, and he knows that if he were successful in wrecking the tax he would wreck the Budget and the policy dependent upon it, and in particular he would succeed in wrecking the scheme of rating reform on which we are working, and would destroy our projects for relieving the necessitous areas, a substantial measure of relief to productive industry and complete relief of rates to agriculture.
7.0 p.m.
I think the right hon. Gentleman has been courageous and candid in taking this attitude of direct and general challenge to the whole proposals which are now being considered. That is what the Amendment amounts to. There is no doubt whatever that without the aid of this tax it would not be possible to make any further progress with the policy which has been unfolded, and we wish to take note of the position which the Opposition have adopted on this question. When the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to detail his arguments there were several points which I think called for reply. In the first place, he represented this tax as one which would fall mainly upon the working classes. I do not think his figures—I will have them examined before the Report stage in detail—will in the slightest justify this contention. The proportion of the tax—I have not got it in my memory at the moment—which is paid by the omnibuses and chars-a-banc is a very small part of the total tax. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is two-thirds."] No, it is not so at all. The commercial vehicles constitute a very important part of the tax, but our case is, and has always been, that they are at the present time not paying to a proper extent for the damage which they do to the roads, and that they are virtually——

Mr. RILEY: May I call your attention—[Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member knows that he cannot speak if the hon. Member who is speaking does not give way.

Mr. RILEY: He ought to give way.

Mr. SHINWELL: He is always talking about vituperation. Why does he not stand up to it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman had plenty of time, but I shall be perfectly willing to allow the hon. Gentleman to interrupt me if he wishes.

Mr. RILEY: May I remind the Chancellor that a question was asked him last week on this very point of the proportion of the burden between privately-owned cars and commercial cars, and the reply of the Chancellor was this. The question was:
Mr. Robinson asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer"—
That is not the question, but, when I produce the answer, he will realise that it is two-thirds commercial vehicles and one-third private vehicles.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I leave it to the Committee to judge whether the hon. Gentleman has made any contribution to the Debate. I stated that only a small proportion of this duty will be collected from the use of hackney vehicles. I have now got the figure, which fully justifies what I stated from my recollection of the facts. Only 16 per cent. of the consumption of petrol may be traced to hackney vehicles, and this covers many other kinds of hackney vehicles, besides the omnibuses and chars-a-bane which are used for the working classes. All the statements put forward by the hon. Gentleman are absolutely unfounded. The great bulk of this duty is paid either by the pleasure or well-to-do traffic or by commercial vehicles. As to the pleasure or well-to-do traffic, it can perfectly well bear this addition to its burdens, and it has been accepted with commendable good will. So far as commercial traffic is concerned, I was about to argue, when I was interrupted and much reproached for not immediately giving way and reproached for being afraid to face the disclosures—never were fears less founded——

Mr. SNOWDEN: This was the question which was put to the right hon. Gentleman on 14th June:
If he will consider the abolition of the tax on petrol used for commercial purposes?
and he replied:
I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, which would entail the reduction of the yield of the Duty by about two-thirds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1928; col. 1158, Vol. 218.]

Mr. CHURCHILL: What has that got to do with the taxation on the working classes? Really, this has not the remotest connection with the facts. When it is sought to justify the original statements, fresh statements are made which have not the remotest connection with the original case. I was proceeding to argue, when I was interrupted on several occasions by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were not in a position to make helpful contributions on the subject, that our case for additional taxation of commercial vehicles is based on the fact that we contend that they are virtually subsidised as against rail traffic, in spite of the tax they bear at present, owing to the great extent to which they cause wear and tear to the roads, not only on account of their weight, but on account of the mileages they run. The ordinary man, who takes his motor bicycle or small car out at the week-end, makes the very slenderest call upon the roads, but the licence duty he pays is computed as though he were using them continuously. On the other hand these commercial vehicles, which play such a valuable part, I readily admit, in our national life, run enormous mileages and of course the mileage of omnibuses are the greatest of all.
I am of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in stating that, in some of the country districts, there has been profiteering by some of the omnibus companies. The tickets, which he produced on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and others which have been sent to me, leave me no doubt that an altogether excessive charge is being imposed in a certain limited area and over certain limited services on those who use those omnibuses. The calculation is that the duty adds a halfpenny a mile to the cost of running an omnibus. If a halfpenny is collected from 15 or 20 passengers in that vehicle, then it is perfectly clear that profiteering of a very gross character almost amounting to an imposture has made itself apparent in some districts.

Mr. HARDIE: You are the father of the crime.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am the father of a great many things. If they are all to be viewed together, I shall be prepared to recognise my progeny. It always happens, when new taxes are imposed, that here and there considerable difficulties and abuse arise, but competition and, I trust, public opinion in this case will have a salutary effect. The right hon. Gentleman then spoke of the non-road-user of petrol, and indicated that that was a heavy burden on the industry of the country. Out of 805,000,000 gallons of imported petrol, only 50,000,000 are used for the non-road purposes, so that, at any rate, that evil is one the limits of which are comparatively narrow. But I have never attempted to argue that this tax is not a burden. I wish I were in the position to carry forward the large scheme, on which we are engaged, which causes so much perturbation to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and which the right hon. Member for Colne Valley would gladly hamstring if he could, without this taxation, if that were in my view at all possible. If we had not had the prolonged industrial troubles of 1926—no matter who was responsible—undoubtedly the revenue of the country and our finances to-day would be in such a position that we would be able to carry forward this policy of rating relief without imposing any new duty.
In all the circumstances, it would have been impossible to have gone on without imposing new taxation and I am most gratified and surprised at the manner in which it has been accepted from one end of the country to the other. I thought it a most serious matter to impose this duty, and I thought it would raise a great storm. We went forward ready to face that storm because of the importance of the objects to which we wished to apply the money. But it has been a matter of great relief and satisfaction to me that the general good sense of this country has accepted this tax as one which might well and reasonably be imposed at the present juncture, and has endorsed the view of the Government, that the tax will be far less burdensome in its effect upon our wellbeing than the direct burden of rates on industrial and productive enterprise, and has shown
itself ready and willing to accept the burden, because it is the only means by which a far greater evil than the tax can be removed from our industrial and economic life. The right hon. Gentleman with the utmost frankness challenged our general policy. We for our part will be ready now, and at any future time, and in any circumstances, to meet him in direct competition.

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Gentleman says he is always ready to recognise his progeny. Does he recognise the child which, four years ago, he hoped so much to bring into being, namely, the child Economy? When he talks about freights, he entirely overlooks the fact that there are whole tracts of the country districts where road transport is the only transport for bringing goods to villages. I did not rise to argue the general case, but to put a particular point to him concerning the administration of the duty, which affects every port in the land. I understand that some zealous Customs House officers have been insisting that the duty on crude oil used as bunkers shall be paid by the ships using that crude oil. As I understand the Clause, crude oils are not supposed to come under the levy of 4d. a gallon, but I understand that some zealous Customs House officers are actually levying it. This is a very important matter, and we should like to have an answer about it. Is this duty included in the Clause or is it intended that there shall be a rebate? I understand that at present, whether the crude oil is transhipped from vessel to vessel, or from tanker to steamer, the Customs officials insist on the payment of the 4d. per gallon which, I venture to say, is entirely illegal. A Cunard liner like the "Mauretania" will take on board for one voyage 6,000 tons or 600,000 gallons of crude oil which at 4d. a gallon represents £10,000. She will make 12 trips in the course of the year and that means, in the case of either the "Mauretania" or the "Berengaria" a sum of £120,000 of taxation on the crude oil used in the bunkers. A Castle Line ship like the "Carnarvon Castle" will ship about 3,000 tons of oil, which means about £5,000 in taxation, or, on the basis of 12 voyages, £60,000 a year. A fair-sized cargo boat, such as those which go out from Leith or Hull or the Port of London,
will ship for each voyage 1,000 tons of crude oil or 100,000 gallons, and will pay roughly £1,600 per voyage.
Is it with the authority of the Treasury that the Customs officials are levying this charge? Even if I am told that a rebate is to be given, I suggest that this practice ought to cease, because it means the locking up of a great amount of capital and involves serious interference with the shipping industry. I am sure that when the House of Commons passed the Budget Resolution authorising the imposition of 4d. a gallon, it did not understand that this practice would be adopted. I regard it as illegal, and there ought to be a direct statement from the Treasury Bench as to what regulations will be made in order that a line may be drawn between the oils which are subject to duty and oils used for bunkering ships so that this interference with shipping may be ended at once.

Mr. MacLAREN: I propose to establish a record in this Debate by occupying not more than one minute. I do not intend to discuss the details of this duty. We all know, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows from his good old Radical training, that ultimately the consumer will pay it. But I think it necessary to denounce this duty as an instrument whereby the present Government hope to raise money to bribe the agricultural districts of this country by the most profligate form of bribery.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I follow the example of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in opposing this duty from the point of view of the average workman. Many workmen to-day are unable to pay their rent or their rates, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to place a further burden on them by this duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was ready to meet the Members of the Opposition at any time and in any part of the country on the question of this duty, and he sought ingeniously to make it appear that the general effect on the workers would be practically nil. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman's theory may be, we find in South Yorkshire, in actual practice, that the miners who are obliged to travel four or five miles every day to work have to make a daily contribution towards this duty. Tickets have been specially printed for
the purpose, and ½d. for Petrol Tax is charged on each 4d. ride. On this basis, and in view of the amount of travelling which these men are called upon to do, they are contributing at the rate of 12½ per cent. If only from that point of view, we are justified in protesting against the imposition of this burden upon those who are already heavily burdened, whether it is to meet the needs of agriculture, of silk manufacturers, of brewers, or of any other fairly prosperous sections of industry in this country. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
The 20th century has seen us become increasingly dependent upon imported liquid fuel, scarcely any of which is found inside the British Empire.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1928; col. 854, Vol. 216.]
That statement is very curious coming from a right hon. Gentleman who, in 1914, placed the resources of the Admiralty at the service of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and participated in that company to the extent of 2,000,000 shares on behalf of the British Government. In 1919, the right hon. Gentleman further manifested his desire to develop the oilfields of Persia by persuading the then Coalition Government to make a further investment, to the extent of 3,000,000 shares, in the same company. These two Government investments in which the right hon. Gentleman has been definitely involved have not brought us nearer to success and there are no guarantees that his next escapade is going to turn out any better. Those two investments did not help British industry, nor did they help the British Empire to develop its own oil resources. Having helped by Government finance and influence to develop the Anglo-Persian oil interests, the right hon. Gentleman now comes along in 1928 and suggests a duty on all petrol consumed—for the purpose, as he says, of protecting the coal-mining industry in this country.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I stated that it would incidentally have an effect in stimulating the development of the coal industry, but that was not the purpose of the proposal. That is a by-product. The main purpose is to get the money for the rating relief scheme.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman made a special point about coal distillation. This Duty, how-
ever, is not so much a help to the coal industry of this country as a method of making another contribution to the refiners of this country. In view of past experience, the miners are obliged to view any proposal of this kind with the utmost suspicion. The Chancellor in his Budget speech showed a definite bias against the distributors of petrol when he made this statement:
I understand about one-half the present price of petrol is represented by the cost of distribution, and there is every reason to believe that some considerable compression might easily be effected in this field."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1928; col. 858, Vol. 216.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman desire to compress the small garage proprietors? Does he want to compress the profits made in the field of distribution in order that more profits may be made by the refiners? In any case, it looks as though the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to prove too much. He first suggested the possibility of this Petrol Duty assisting the distillation of coal and in the next breath he suggested that there should be a reasonable compression in the charges for distribution. If there should be a considerable compression in the 6¾d. per gallon spent on distribution, would that not cancel out the 4d. Duty, and would not the protection which he suggests for the coal industry, in regard to the distillation of coal, be cancelled out also? In proving too much, she Chancellor of the Exchequer indicates that there may be in the dark regions of other considerations which lie behind this proposal, some other reason for this suggestion of protection. Those in the coal industry who have had experience of by-product work in the past, cannot fail to be suspicious that this Duty is designed so consolidate a vested interest in this country. We remember the very pleasant gift which the Government made to the sugar refiners. I recall that Lord Melchett, then Sir Alfred Mond, speaking on the Budget, made this statement:
This is the most fruitful, the most far-reaching, the most statesmanlike and the biggest-visioned Budget we have had introduced into the House for a great number of years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1928; col. 947, Vol. 216.]
Any statement originating from that source is viewed with a great deal of suspicion on this side of the Committee, and the speech which was made by Sir
Alfred Mond, now Lord Melchett, on the 1st June on the introduction of the Budget lends itself to the belief that the ultimate result of this Petrol Duty will be that the company of which Lord Melchett is the head, having deprived Baldwins, Limited, of the profitable production of sulphate ammonia, are also going to deprive them of the profitable production of coal distillation. On 4th June, Lord Melchett, speaking as chairman of the Chemical Industries, Limited, at the annual meeting, said:
I want to say a few words on the important subject of oil from coal.… We have been studying this problem for some time, and not long ago I saw the first petrol produced from oil on a small scale at Billingham. Our problem is not quite the same as that of the Germans, who are working from brown coal, but we are proceeding with this, and we are satisfied that a technical solution can be found.
That is quite different from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said definitely that a solution of the problem had been found. Lord Melchett went on to say:
The commercial aspect has been much altered by the imposition of a duty of 4d. per gallon in the new Budget. The Chancellor, by introducing this Duty, has certainly rendered easier and more practicable all those processes which aim at turning our coal into the petrol and oil we require.
My point is that the Petrol Duty, which the consumers are called upon to pay, is going to be used for the purpose of establishing a tremendous vested interest in this country, at the head of which may be Lord Melchett or anybody else, and that it is not going to be of any assistance to the producers of coal. Unless we can be sure that the production of the raw material is going to have some relation to the utilisation of that raw material, that the value of the finished article will be reflected in the wages paid to the working people, we ought not to support an imposition of this description. I suggest that the statement made by Lord Melchett only helps to consolidate our suspicions. We know that the workers, indirectly, will be called upon to pay the Petrol Duty. Whoever may make the first payment, ultimately the workers will pay. We have proof positive that they are paying it now all over the country. In the price of their foodstuffs and other commodities the price
of petrol is reflected and, therefore, it is the consumer, the workers, who will be called upon to pay. Unless we can have some guarantee from the Government that the workers, or the nation as a whole, will benefit as a result of this further piece of indirect taxation, we are justified in opposing the duty in the Division Lobby.

Mr. R. MORRISON: I desire to put a point which has not yet been mentioned, and that is the practicability of this Duty. During the Debate on the Budget Resolutions, and also this afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a threatening sort of way has held up his hands in horror at the idea that we are challenging the whole fabric of what he calls his scheme. I think I may speak for every hon. Member on these benches when I say that we certainly do challenge the whole fabric of the Budget proposals and are prepared to do so before the electors of this country. In my own constituency, over 1,000 people were summoned for not paying their rates. A stone's throw away there is a big firm which has paid 90 per cent. in dividends to its shareholders during the last five or six years. These people are not fools and are beginning to realise that there is something wrong with a Government which proposes to pay three-quarters of the rates of a firm paying 90 per cent. dividend at a time when numbers of poor people are being summoned for not paying their rates. We are perfectly justified in challenging not only the Petrol Duty but the whole fabric of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, and we are prepared to allow the electors to decide.
The right hon. Gentleman used some strong language this afternoon about the profiteering that was going on by omnibus companies, particularly in country districts. The language was all right, but it came to nothing in the end. His only solution was that competition might put it right. Competition, as we all know, has almost ceased among these omnibus companies. There is very little competition and, consequently, I cannot see how this profiteering is going to be stopped. With regard to the practicability of this Duty on petrol; it is interesting to remember how the proposal arose. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-
Bury) who I am sorry is not present at the moment, presented a gigantic petition signed by over 1,000,000 people asking for a tax on petrol. It had been organised fey the Automobile Association, which is said to number among its members about 200 Members of Parliament. The proposal in that petition was that the horse-power Duty should be abolished and in its place there should be a registration fee of 2s. 6d. plus 6d. per gallon petrol Duty, and it was estimated that this would raise the same amount as was being produced by the horse-power Duty. The point I want to bring before the Committee is: why has that not been done? Why has not the horse-power Duty been abolished and a levy on petrol put in its place? The answer was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech: He said:
A separate petrol duty levied for road purposes only involves a new chemical frontier much more complicated than the one that divides the light oils from the heavy.… It is a highly complicated matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1928; col. 862, Vol. 216.]
In the same speech he went on to tell the House that a Committee of experts had been sitting for three years dealing with this question, and he said that it consisted of the best scientists they could command, and in addition they had the services of the chemists of the great oil companies, and that the formula they arrived at represented the very last word. The formula was the chemical frontier between what the Chancellor of the Exchequer called light oils and heavy oils. From that statement it will be seen that the right hon. Gentleman had no intention of taxing paraffin. His idea was to tax petrol. His Committee which had sat for three years reported that it was a highly complicated matter, an almost impossible proposition, but that it was possible to set up a chemical frontier between light oils and heavy oils. That was his position when he introduced the Budget.
The question I want to put is: Why did he alter his position in less than a week? After the first week-end, during which hon. Members had been to their constituencies and discovered a good deal of indignation, a meeting was held upstairs, then a deputation went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, negotiations took place, and it all ended in a
complete surrender; paraffin was cut out of the Budget. Conservative Members as well as other hon. Members were very glad, but what about the poor Chancellor of the Exchequer, what is the effect likely to be? Is it only that he has lost £3,000,000? I think it is a much wider question than that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said that it is much more complicated to draw a frontier between light oils subject to duty and those that are not, and that there would be some additional expense in the collection of the duty. He admitted two things. First, that it is a much more complicated business to draw up a frontier and, secondly that there will be some additional expense in the collection of the duty. One question should be answered in this Debate. Did the experts who sat for three years on this question, and were unable to find a chemical frontier separating petrol from other oils, suddenly discover one when Tory Members of Parliament revolted? Let me quote again from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech:
The complications are enormous.… A separate Petrol Duty levied for road purposes only involves a new chemical frontier much more complicated than the one that divides the light oils from the heavy.… It is a highly complicated matter.… I am already putting a very heavy strain upon the Customs and Excise officials, and I do not wish to add to that at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1928; cols. 861–2, Vol. 216.]
Is that true? If it is we ought to know. Can anyone explain how it came about that a week later the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had said that the complications were enormous, should turn round and say that it is a simple matter, and that all you have to do is to substitute a new chemical frontier expressed in terms quite unintelligible to all but experts? Later, he gave a hint that after all it was not so simple as it looked. He said:
There is, of course, a danger, if kerosene is exempt from duty while petrol is taxed, that misguided persons will attempt to burn kerosene, or mixtures containing it, in their motor vehicles to the detriment of the duty on petrol. However, I am assured that they will not long continue that practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1928; cols. 1593–4, Vol. 216.]
Those of us who were present when he announced the surrender will remember distinctly that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer went on to shake his finger in solemn warning as to what would happen to the engines of motor ears if people were foolish enough to try to burn mixtures of petrol and kerosene. Within an hour, from the Conservative benches, a practical motor expert, probably one of the greatest in this House, gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer his reply. I am referring to the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), who said:
It is no good the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that you cannot use paraffin in motor cars, because it will be found that it can be done. The objection that he raises, even on the question of spoiling the lubricating oil, has already been got over by the use of distilling filters.
It is generally recognised that the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham has a very close practical knowledge of motoring. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely, as the months pass, to get into a worse difficulty on this subject than he got into in regard to the Betting Duty last year. Against the advice of his own officials he has rushed in and thrown the Kerosene Duty overboard. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply for the Government will throw some light on the subject, which is rather a mystery at the present time.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: I noticed with some interest that none of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have put their names to this Amendment sit for coal-mining areas. The party opposite speaks with two voices on this matter, apparently. They forgot, when they put down the Amendment, that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. G. Hall), who moved a reduction of the Vote for the Ministry of Mines last week, spoke of the competition between oil and coal in this country. He showed the extent to which the coal industry was suffering at the hands of the oil industry. It is going to be very interesting for Members on this side who sit for coal-mining areas, to be able to explain to those areas the fact that the Labour party are proposing officially to decrease the relief which would have come to those coal-mining areas by no less than 75 per cent. Let me read what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil said last Thursday:
We are told that in 1910 the total imports of oil into this country were 345,000,000 gallons, and in 1927, 2,051,000,000 gallons; in other words, last year it cost thi6 country nearly £44,000,000 for the importation into this country of a commodity Which is competing with coal. Last year was not the peak year either. According to the information that one has been able to get, there has been an increase in the importation of oil into this country from 429,000,000 gallons for the first five months of 1926 to 646,000,000 gallons for the first five months of 1928.
He went on to describe the various processes under investigation for the production of oil from British coal, and he instanced a number, and then said:
Ought not a process of that kind to be encouraged more than it is encouraged at the present time by the Government or by the Mines Department?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1928; col. 1818; Vol. 218.]
Surely it stands to reason, if what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil said is true, that one of the things causing depression in the coal industry to-day is the increasing competition of oil, it ill becomes hon. Members opposite, who always talk about the evils and difficulties of the coal industry, to come forward to-day and move to reduce by this 75 per cent. the competitive power of British oil produced from British coal. We have heard in the course of the last few days that the loss of the coal industry to-day approaches a shilling per ton of coal. It has been calculated that the relief which has been given by the Budget, by the imposition of this Petrol Duty, will amount, taking the country as a whole and taking the various reliefs on rates, railway freights and so on, to something approaching 6d. Again it will be very convenient and very good for us on this side to be able to go down and tell our constituents that the Labour party are proposing to put off still further the day when the miners will be able to get an increase of wages as a result of the coal industry having become profitable again—that the day is put off further by the fact that, instead of the coal industry being able to get 6d. a ton reduction in costs under the Budget, the reduction will be only 1½d. per ton if this Amendment be passed.

Mr. OLIVER: Have the hon. Gentleman's constituents not told him that they are already paying in increased omnibus
fares one shilling a week, and are paying for the relief that the coal industry will get?

Mr. HUDSON: It unfortunately happens that in my particular constituency the men either walk or cycle to their work, and where omnibuses are used the company pays a large proportion of the cost. In any case that does not alter the fact that the day when the men will be able to benefit by the division of some of the profits in the industry will be still further postponed if this Amendment be carried. For this reason alone I am sure that all of us on this side are grateful to hon. Members opposite for moving this Amendment. It shows the absolute lack of foundation for what they are always claiming—that they are the friends of the coal industry and of the miners.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. K. Hudson) began his remarks by saying that it would be a matter of great interest to himself and his friends to know what hon. Members of the Labour party who represent coal mining areas had said. As the hon. Member went on, it became a matter of great interest to me to realise that the angle from which the hon. Member approaches this question is what he will be able to state to his constituents about what someone else is doing; and, secondly, that he will be able to go to his constituents and to say "The relief to be, given you under the Budget is at the rate of 6d. a ton." Is that the hon. Member's attitude? If so, what right have the hon. Member and his friends to cast stones at Labour Members with regard to certain Poor Law guardians? If we are going to have charges of bribery like that, let us have them on both sides. If people are going to complain of bribery in one direction it does not lies in their mouths to enunciate the doctrine of mass bribery on the other side.

Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot have caught the drift of my argument. The men in the mining districts to-day cannot get any increased wages until there is a profit earned, and there is at present a loss of a shilling per ton, or 9d. a ton on the average. The proposal of the Budget will reduce that loss by about 6d. a ton, and, therefore, will bring nearer the day on which
the men will be able to get an increase of wages under the ascertainment. That is not bribery.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I do not think I failed to catch the drift of the hon. Member's argument. He began by saying that he would proceed to tell his constituents, who were interested in the mining industry, that hon. Members of the Labour party were trying to obtain 75 per cent. decrease in the amount of relief that his constituents were to get. He went on to say that that 75 per cent. total relief was equivalent to 6d. a ton. In the first place. I think the hon. Gentleman is not doing himself justice, any more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer does himself justice, in these discussions, in the attitude which he takes towards them. A few minutes ago the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) mentioned that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had first stated that it was a practical impossibility to arrive at a formula which would enable the Petrol Duty to be imposed, or a differentiation made between petrol and paraffin, but that later the right hon. Gentleman said that this would be a perfectly simple matter. We have not got a perfectly simple; Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the attitude of the Chancellor towards this tax, like that of the hon. Member who has just spoken, is totally wrong and is not worthy of the traditions of the House. What are the reasons why we oppose this duty? In the first place we are opposed to [...]he way in which the money, when raised is to be spent. We may be wrong, as anybody may be wrong; but even if we are wrong we are entitled to careful consideration of what we say. Otherwise why are we here at all? I say to the last speaker that although, if we stop short at the Amendment, the effects might be such as he suggested, yet if we adopted, not the whole scheme of the right hon. Gentleman but the whole scheme that has been urged from these benches, the hon. Gentleman's particular district would get more than 6d. a ton.

Mr. HUDSON: Ninepence for four-pence!

8.0 p.m.

Mr. CRAWFURD: That is very amusing, but it does not really meet criticism. The hon. Member's district, I say, will get more, and similar areas will get more, and deservedly more, than under the Chancellor's proposal, by just
that amount by which under the Government's proposal money is to be wasted upon people who do not need it. Unfortunately I have not been able to be here during the past week, but I have seen in the Press statment after statement made in this House and in public speeches by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by leading Members of the Government, to the effect that my hon. Friends have got some sort of prejudice against prosperous industries. We have nothing of the sort. We rejoice to see industries prosper, and I will show how the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had had a little more consideration for industry, could have made industry prosper far more. Although we rejoice to see industry prosper, we do not think it is necessary to give the prosperous industry money which is to come from the pockets of those who are less prosperous. We object to the way in which the money is to be spent, and we object to the way in which the money is to be raised. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson) said that if this Amendment were carried, such and such a result would happen, and that the relief which his constituents were to get would be denied to them. The hon. Member had no right to say that. He knows perfectly well that we do not stop at this Amendment and that we have a proposal which would give more than is being given by the Government. He has no right to say that the result of a particular Amendment, if carried, would be such that the party who support it desire to prevent his constituents from getting relief.
I am entitled to say something about the Government's neglect of the motor industry in dealing with the Petrol Duty. The Motor Duty, which goes back as far as 1909–10, is a tax drawn from a particular industry for a particular purpose, and, therefore, is a discriminating tax, because it taxes only motor users. At a certain period the method of the taxation was altered to the harming and worsening of the industry. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), in speeches which they made some weeks ago in this House, pointed out conclusively that the motor trade in this country is being hampered in one way more
than any other by the persistence of the Government in adhering to the horsepower tax.
The great obstacle to our motor trade capturing our Dominion market and a far larger share of the export market is because the Government insist upon retaining the horse-power tax. Every motoring expert inside and outside this House who has spoken on the matter is agreed upon that point. We all know the disaster which followed upon a leading Australian attempting to introduce these British cars into the Australian market, because of the horse-power tax. We are here to-day discussing what is said to be a relief of industry—not, if you like, a direct bribe—and the Government by the course they have pursued for the last three or four years and by the additional duty which they are putting upon this particular industry through the Petrol Duty have done as much as lies in their power, not to help the motor industry, but to injure it. We object to the way in which the money is to be spent, and the way in which it is to be raised. It is a thoroughly bad duty—we have our own proposals—and we shall vote against it.

Mr. GILLETT: I am entirely with the hon. Member for Walthamstow West (Mr. Crawfurd) in disagreeing with the principle on which the money is to be distributed, even if we held that the distribution of the money in the way suggested by the Government will be helpful to industry. I disagree with that point of view, because I believe, in the first place, that the Government will be too late with their help, and, secondly, that they are spreading the money to such an extent that it is not likely to be as effective as it might be otherwise. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his cheerful, airy way, says: "I cannot raise the money in any other way. Therefore, it must be raised by a duty on petrol." There is no need for hon. Members to take it that there is no other way of raising the money. I disagree entirely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I would ask hon. Members opposite not to sit down complacently, and say: "This is the way we suggest, and no other way is possible." There are other ways, and anyone could suggest a number of ways.
There is one fundamental objection to the proposals which the Government are
making, and that is that the duty has not met with as great an objection as would have been the case if it had been imposed a year or two ago, when the price of petrol was much higher. The fundamental mistake that the Government are making is that they are imposing this duty upon a commodity over which this country has practically no control whatever. Already it has been pointed out in the Press that the price of petrol in America, from which country 72 per cent. of the world supply comes, had been recently at a lower figure, but in the last few months there has been a rise in the price, while the demand in America for petrol for domestic purposes has risen recently by something like 16 per cent. At the same time, there has been a larger increase in the number of motor cars in use in that country. The registration of cars in the early part of this year in America increased by about 6 per cent. You are going to have a country which is the largest producer of oil in the world finding a great demand in its own services for that commodity, although there may be other countries which, at the same time, may produce the commodity. A good deal is said about the Russian supply, but the Russian supply is only about 6 per cent. of the supply of the world, and can therefore almost be ignored.
The serious point is that the Government are going to build upon this uncertain factor the financial structure of their scheme of rating reform. What will happen if the great oil companies get control again of the price of the commodity? I will draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to a report which appeared in one of the morning financial newspapers that an understanding has just been come to by two of the greatest oil interests in the world. The report was denied, but it is obvious that there is something going on in the way of negotiation between the oil interests. Suppose they come to a satisfactory conclusion from their point of view, but unsatisfactory from the point of view of the oil consumers of the world; in a very short time the users of oil in this country may be faced not only with the duty which the Government are imposing upon them but also with the fact that they will have to pay an increased price for the raw material in their industry.
If we [...]urn to see the effect which this will have upon some of the industries referred to, it is very striking. The Chairman of a motor omnibus company in London, soon after the proposal came before the country, estimated that last year the duty, had it been in operation, would have involved the motor omnibuses of London in an expenditure close upon £400,000. The Secretary of one of the commercial companies has estimated—it is a statement made by a Mr. Bristow—that the rebate on a London omnibus would be £22, while the additional tax would involve an expenditure of something like £100. In connection with motor vehicles, he also estimated that, white there would be a saving of possibly £12 on a heavy commercial vehicle, yet when the duty finally came into operation, with the addition which the companies would put on from 4d. to 5d., there would be an extra cost per vehicle of from £40 to £50. Anyone who has studied the charges in connection with motor traffic knows that on heavy commercial vehicles about 20 per cent. of the running cost is due to the petrol charges. Therefore this duty is a very serious matter. These are two of the reasons which make me say how unsatisfactory are the proposals of the Government.
We have to bear in mind that, beside the commercial interest, and beside the burden thrown upon the motor omnibus, and so noon the workers, there are numbers of other industries which are vitally affected. The professional man, a doctor, for instance, is involved in extra charge on the motor car which he keeps, and there are a large number of industries which make use of petrol and some kind of motor vehicle in their business, so that additional charge will be thrown upon them. Why the Government could not have thought out some scheme that would have procured this money without easting an extra burden upon industry, I do not know. There are large sources of revenue which are only partially taxed, and those sources could have been drawn upon without inflicting hardship. It is most unfortunate that the Government should come forward with a proposal of this kind. The basis is unsound, and we may live to regret it very much when we find the price of petrol rising in this country, and the motor industry affected prejudicially.
Upon that unstable foundation, the Government are attempting to build, and they may find, long before the promised benefits have arrived to the community, that some other factors will have intervened which will have made the burden still greater, and, instead of the so-called gifts being received with welcome, they will find that they have aroused a storm of opposition which they cannot ignore.

Mr. OLIVER: I would not have risen but for the observations of the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson). He told us that he represented a mining constituency, and that the opposition from this side of the Committee will be given as evidence against us, as being inimical to the interests of the miner and the mining industry generally. I have had the advantage of being in contact with my constituency as recently as yesterday, and, if my experience may be accepted as a criterion of the experience of other hon. Members representing mining constituencies, I am quite sure that, instead of the miner praising the Government for the introduction of this scheme, he will condemn them violently, particularly when the full force of the Measure comes into operation. I have been trying to obtain figures in order to find out how much petrol is used by the private car owner, and how much by commercial vehicles in the form of road transport and the familiar motor omnibuses in which the working-classes ride. I understand, however, that no such figures are available. If they could be obtained, they would be most illuminating, because outside the petrol which is used for private cars, the bulk of the increased charge of 4d. per gallon will be and is being borne by the working classes.
Speaking quite recently to a very well known firm of road transport contractors, I was told that there was no doubt about it that the increased charge which is imposed by this Budget would be transferred to the consumers, in the form of the people who purchase the articles which are transported by road. According to the information I have obtained from my constituency, which is mainly a mining district, I understand that by the increase which the omnibus companies have imposed in their fares, the miners who are compelled to travel daily to their work under the weekly ticket
system are paying no less than 1s. a week increase at a time when their wages are at a particularly low ebb. Instead of having immediate relief, which they require, they are paying at least an additional 1s. a week, and in some instances a higher figure than that. It will take a long time before this scheme, however brilliantly conceived, can possible give back to the miners—and what applies to the miners applies to other workers as well—the amount of increased fares that they are now being charged.
Instead of feeling that we are doing wrong in opposing the proposals of the Government and in suggesting that this tax ought to be reduced, I think that, until the Government can come forward and say that the charge cannot be transferred to the working-classes but must be borne by the industry upon which it is imposed, there is no justification for the statement that the mining industry will rejoice at the proposals of the Government. In view of the great increases which have taken place in the fares, an increase of 3d. and 4d. from Nottingham to my own constituency, representing an increase of 30, 40 and 45 per cent. in the travelling charges, I think it constitutes a positive outrage; and it is up to the Government to come forward with some other proposal, because, like the last speaker, I feel that the £30,000,000 required to relieve industry can be obtained by a much simpler and more effective means. I noticed that in the first Budget that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced into this House, he handed back to the Super-tax payers of this country a sum almost exactly the amount which it is proposed to raise by this 4d. per gallon on petrol, and for that reason I hope that hon. Members opposite, who are so concerned about relieving industry and helping to stimulate the purchasing power of the working classes, will come into the Lobby and vote for this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Before we come to an end of this discussion, I think we ought to look at this duty from the point of view of agriculture, and I should like to say a word about the way in which this duty affects agriculture. First of all, there are no doubt certain of the larger farmers, who use a tremendous amount of petrol both in their commercial vehicles and in their tractors and other
agricultural implements and machinery of all kinds, will possibly find that the duty on petrol is an off-set to the rating relief which they will get on land. But I think the majority of agriculturists will take a much larger view and will say that, at any rate, the rating relief on land is permanent, whereas the tax on petrol is capable of alteration. While large farmers may find the Petrol Duty to be a burden at the start even now, they are, at any rate, paying less than they would have paid a year ago when petrol was dearer, and the smallholders and farmers who do not use much agricultural machinery will find undoubted relief in their rates. For that reason, I think the feeling in agricultural districts is entirely in favour of the system of agricultural relief.
When we are taking the larger view, I differ very much from those who say that we are approaching a time of oil shortage. We know that there are recently tapped wells, for instance, in Mosul, which have had to be closed down because it was not possible to use them, and all those large fields will open up if the price of petrol is increased. We hope also that we are on the eve of discoveries in coal whereby we shall increase our sources of supply of petrol; and it was with amazement that I listened to the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), who has just sat down, and to the speeches of other miners' representatives, who do not welcome this tax as a possibility of helping the coal industry. To my mind, it shows, if I may say so, that they have a great deal to learn in finance and in fiscal matters generally. In looking at it from a large point of view, we must not neglect the present, and while petrol is at a low price, as it is now, I have no hesitation in supporting the present duty.

Mr. TOWNEND: In the discussion on the last Amendment, we had a difficulty in appreciating the angle from which those responsible for this Measure viewed the effect of this legislation upon the lives of those who constitute the larger proportion of the population of this land. We endeavoured to impress the Financial Secretary of the Treasury with the fact that 2s. 7d. was rather an important proportion of the weekly wages of the
workers, and we had a difficulty in understanding his suggestion that that was a mere detail.

Mr. SAMUEL: 2s. 7d. a year, not weekly, as the hon. Member says.

Mr. TOWNEND: At any rate, 17s. per year. We had the utmost difficulty in impressing on the mind of the Financial Secretary the fact that 17s. in the pockets of the average workers of this land was an important item. He said we must use the figures relatively and that it did not matter so very much, because it was only a small amount. In the same way, we have a great difficulty in appreciating the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the attitude that he takes up towards the critics of this phase of his Bill. He comes along and takes the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) to task by telling him that, if this Amendment be carried, he will be compelled to withdraw this proposal from the Bill, and that it would wreck his rating reform scheme. He also says that my right hon. Friend was very courageous in moving this Amendment in view of the dire effect that it would have on the Budget, and that he could not progress with the policy of the Government if the Amendment were carried. The assumption of injured innocence on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is something to make the angels weep. Quite frankly, we cannot understand his suggesting that we are prepared to do anything else but attempt to destroy this part of the Budget proposals, particularly when we know that this duty is to be applied for the purpose not only of assisting those who really need it, but, to a very large extent of the proceeds, those who really have no necessity for it.
Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will believe me when I say that we are opposing this Bill out of kindness to his Department. It was suggested that we were the only opponents to this part of the proposal, but I want to assure the Financial Secretary that we are not the only people who are objecting to this scheme. The local authorities are lying in wait for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the purpose to which he proposes to put the proceeds of this duty. When we know that it is being used for the purpose of relieving sectional
and specified industries, and that the benefit of the duty will not be shared by the population as a whole, when we see the effect of the Chancellor's Road Fund raid on the local authorities, we are entitled to say to the Chancellor that, before any further tax is placed upon petrol-driven vehicles, his shortcomings in connection with the improvement of the roads should be remedied. When we are informed, as we have been this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, of the dangerous state of the roads, and reminded, as we were by the Postmaster-General a few days ago, of the extreme dangers of the roads and of the fact that many of them are death traps, surely the local authorities ought to have some kind of relief other than that which is to be provided to industries, both prosperous and depressed, by this Clause. Therefore, I want to assure the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that, until we find a greater degree of equity as between one section of the public and another, we shall feel that we are justified in the attitude which we have taken up, and we shall go without hesitation into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment.

Mr. BECKETT: I wish that the House had been very much fuller to have heard the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage). He commended the Government's proposals by saying that, after all, the relief that is to be given in the rating of land is permanent, whereas the Petrol Duty is capable of alteration. I shall be interested to hear if that is really the idea at the back of the mind of the authors of this proposal, because it seems to embody in a nutshell the whole of the Conservative philosophy of taxation. They bring in a scheme which, they say, is going to rob the rich man's motor car in order to relieve the poor man's rates. It is only when the scheme is very carefully analysed that you discover that the rich man's motor car is going to bear a very small burden of the amount to be raised, and that, after putting a crushing burden on many sections of the working class, and after having made the life of the more poorly paid and necessitous middle-class much more difficult, they say, "The landlords
are going to get relief for ever, and perhaps your taxation will not be so bad in a few years' time."
The people for whom I want to plead are not the manual working class, whose case has been put so ably by many Members of these benches, but those who, for want of a better term, I would describe as the lower middle-class, whose means of earning a living are becoming more and more bound up with the running of petrol-driven vehicles. I have always opposed the suggestion that the Petrol Duty should be substituted for the horsepower tax, and I support this Amendment because, unfair as the horse-power tax is, a tax which is based on mileage is a much more unfair burden on the community. What you do when you charge 4d. a gallon on petrol is not to get the money from those who can afford it, that is, the pleasure motorists who do not run cars for very many miles, and only for pleasure journeys; the mass of car users who will be hardly hit are the thousands of small people, such as commercial travellers, managers of multiple businesses, who have to use petrol-driven vehicles. More and more employers tend to make it a condition that they should have a petrol-driven vehicle, and in order to carry out their work effectively and satisfactorily to their employers, they have to drive cars.
I have been making inquiries into the position in regard to a trade union with which I am concerned. This union has in its membership several hundred men who are employed in managing one or two different businesses for multiple firms, and they find it necessary in these days, if they are to compete satisfactorily, to have a petrol-driven vehicle. Commercial travellers, canvassers, and that type of people, on whom the other side rely for their seats and positions in this House in many cases, will be hit very hardly by this heavy duty. If we are successful in passing this Amendment—and judging from the state of the Committee at the moment we shall be—and reduce the sum which the Chancellor will have at his disposal for the benefit of large industries, some of them poor and some of them affluent, we shall not injure the Government. As my hon. Friend who has just spoken says, we shall be doing the Government a very good turn. The hon. Member mentioned what was happening with the
omnibuses in one part of the country. In one line of omnibuses running in my constituency, the passengers are first charged their ordinary fare, and then given another ticket for a halfpenny, a penny, three halfpence or twopence, as the case may be, and on this ticket it says:
This extra money is to pay your petrol tax.
I say to hon. Members opposite that if we carry this Amendment we shall be saving them from the machinations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who intends to destroy their vast majority as he has destroyed vast majorities before. I hope the Committee will not be deluded by the specious promises made in the Budget speech, because as these omnibus tickets are issued and people realise that another 1d. has been put on the fare in order to give the Noble Lord who recently sat in this House as Member for Carmarthen £200,000 a year for the relief of his necessitous and forlorn businesses, and in order that the brewer supporters of the Conservative party may have another £400,000 a year, there will be a good deal of dissatisfaction. Hon. Members will find that even the dullest Tory working men and Conservative middle-class supporters will begin to grumble when they find that the use of the car which they employ for business purposes or of the omnibus in which they go to and from their work is made more expensive in order to benefit large benefactors of the Conservative party. Therefore, hon. Members opposite have nothing to fear from the carrying of this Amendment, but have everything to gain. Instead of going to the electors in fear and trembling and saying, "We did not really mean it, but the Chancellor talked us into it," they will be able to say: "When a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had not had time to get steeped in the great traditions of the Conservative party brought forward a proposal that was not quite in keeping with the principles and the conscientious convictions that we hold, we did not hesitate to join even with those terrible Labour men to pre-serve your interest, to cheapen your omnibus fares, and enable you to use your cars for business and for pleasure without being taxed at every turn for the benefit of a very large number of affluent and prosperous industrialists."

Mr. WELLOCK: My fundamental objection to this tax is the misuse to be made of the money to be derived from it After all, the sources of taxation are not too numerous, and I do not think any section of the people will object to any kind of taxation if the use which is to be made of the money justifies it. I do not think those who have to pay the 4d. duty on petrol would really object if the businesses which are suffering at the present time were to get the benefit, but what I do not think the British public will stand, especially that section which is having so pay the tax, is that a large amount of the revenue derived from it is to go into the pockets of prosperous business people. In past times almost everything that has been done in our Parliament has sacrificed the working classes to business interests. Now we are going a stage further, and are witnessing the sacrifice of the small business men to big business interests. In every part of the country small tradesmen are realising what is their fate, and are seriously considering the changing of their political allegiance. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson) said that if this duty were agreed to the miners of the country could look forward to improving their wages. I am afraid he has not realised what is actually taking place at the present time. During the first three months of this year the miners have suffered reductions in wages at the rate of £7,000,000 a year. Last year the miners received £117,000,000 in wages, and in the first three months of this year their wages were at the rate of only £110,000,000 a year.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not understand how the hon. Member is connecting his speech with a duty of 4d. on oils.

Mr. WELLOCK: The hon. Member for Whitehaven suggested that the Finance Bill foreshadowed an increase in miners' wages, and I was merely pointing out that during the first three months of this year they have suffered reductions in wages at the rate of £7,000,000 per year, which is more than the total value of the relief which is to be given to the mining industry. But my fundamental objection is that a sum of money which has not yet been stated with any definiteness—nobody knows how much will be used for this purpose—is to go into the pockets of people who are running profit-
able businesses. I say the small business people will not tolerate that condition of things and will manifest their displeasure when the next election comes round. If a duty of 1d. per gallon had been put on and the money had been concentrated on one particular industry as an experiment, I believe that would have given far more satisfaction to the people of this country.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already replied to the Debate, but one or two specific points have since been raised by hon. Members, and I will do my best to reply to them. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) raised a question of ships in harbour and also the transfer of bunker oil from one ship to another, and the question of fuel oil in general. With regard to bunker oil, I take it the hon. Member is referring to the transfer of surplus bunkers. In that case, transfers will be permitted without any formality save the lodging of a request by the persons responsible with the Customs officers, because in the case of ships in port the oil comes within the purview of the Customs officers. No further formality would be necessary. In the case of fuel oil in general, this would be landed as "free goods." It is subject, of course, to a full rebate, but there is no question of paying money and then getting the money back. It is put into bond and drawn out by the ship starting on its voyage, and thereby there is no actual financing of this duty done by the shipping company. I hope that meets the point which the hon. Member wished to raise.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) raised the question of the practicability of these proposals in view of the new chemical frontier between the classes of oil which have now been distinguished in the duty, taking as his authority the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon). We have decided that it will be quite practicable to impose the duty under the new conditions. We have consulted authorities higher even, I think, than the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham, including the members of the Petroleum Committee and important persons in the commercial world, such as
the operating manager of the London General Omnibus Company. We have been told on the best authority that there will be no insuperable difficulty in practice in operating this duty on the formula which has been enshrined in the Finance Bill.
I think I have now answered all the points of substance. The general attack which has been made on the Petrol Duty has been replied to on the widest possible grounds by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. May I point out that at the present time the price of petrol is no higher than it was in 1924, and, if the working-classes were able to bear the strain of the omnibus fares and the, petrol charges which were imposed in 1924, I can see no reason to suppose that the omnibus fares current on account of the present prices will prove so serious as has been predicted.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: How will it be possible for a miner who is now receiving a wage of £2 9s. per week as against £4 per week in 1924 to pay increased omnibus fares?

Major ELLIOT: Unless we can get the mines of the country working again a mere reduction of a halfpenny in the omnibus fares of a miner will be of very little advantage. If we can only get the industries working again, then it will be possible for the miner to pay his extra omnibus fare, and a penny up or down will be of much less importance.

Mr. HARDIE: I was so deeply interested in this question that I have been looking forward to hearing something more than we have heard upon this particularly interesting Clause. I was expecting to hear something with regard to the possible evasion of the tax. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has told us that the Government have had the most competent men connected with the Petrol Board investigating this question. A short time ago, accompanied by two chemists, I drove in a car which was driven by a power which escaped every proposal in this Bill. For a long time, I have been trying to get hon. Members to grasp what they are up against by the problems presented in the case of the Petrol Duty. Nothing whatever has been said about the danger of escaping the duty. I would like to remind the Under-Secretary that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, when he first introduced this duty, laid stress on the fact that it was going to help forward the possible scientific treatment of coal for the production of oil. I should have thought, after making that statement as a simple forecast, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when we came to deal with this Clause in detail, would have come forward to tell us how his object was going to be achieved in regard to the production of oil. What is the use of the right hon. Gentleman claiming to be practical if when we come to an essential point we do not have some statement, which the ordinary lay mind can grasp, as to what is meant by this help resulting from a duty of 4d. on petrol. Why is it that the whole of this question has been evaded? The hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) pointed out that the price of oil had become so low that certain oil wells were shutting down and were waiting for a rise in price.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I did not say that.

Mr. HARDIE: On this point, I am within the recollection of the Committee, and I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman did make that statement.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I said that many of the wells that had been discovered in Mosul had been shut down because it did not pay to work them.

Mr. HARDIE: At any rate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did make the statement that this duty would produce something that would help the miner by the scientific treatment of coal. Now we have been told by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth that there is such a large supply in the oil wells that it does not pay to let the oil run out. A great deal of nonsense is talked about natural oil wells. There is an impression that all you have to do is simply to bore a hole where you suspect that there is oil, but that is not necessarily an oil strike. When a hole is bored, the flow of oil from it goes on, but you never know when it is going to go off, and that is where all the gamble takes place in oil, because you cannot, even when you get an oil well, measure what oil is going to come out of it. People whoso minds are only concerned with the placing of bias
either to the right or to the left cannot expect to follow the ordinary everyday business of the House of Commons.
The statement has been made twice to-day that the Petrol Duty was to go to form a subsidy to something else, but, according to the statements which have been made and what has been left unsaid, it is not going to be possible to treat coal in order to make the products from it pay, owing to the fact that oil wells cannot be worked because the price of oil is not high enough. How is this tax of 4d. going to help the coal industry in this country? It cannot be done in that way. If a proper investigation had been made in relation to oil as between what is brought into the country and what we can get from our own coal, and by the process of cracking the oil and getting the various bodies of which it is constituted—if that had been done and put before the House of Commons, it would have been understood, but, instead of that, we have simply these blind-alley methods. This Clause, drawn up as it is, simply means an evasion of the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced the Budget, and a tax which it was said would apply to one thing is going to apply to another. That is just the form of juggling which is so characteristic of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. JOHN BAKER: I had not intended to intervene in the Debate until I heard the suggestion of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that in some mysterious way this tax of 4d. a gallon on petrol is going to increase miners' wages. I would be very pleased if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would intervene again and enlighten me on that point. The problem of the steel worker is a little dearer to me than that of the miner. If this tax goes through, and its product is applied in the way suggested, it is an absolute certainty that it will have the effect of reducing prices, and, as wages in the steel trade are based on the selling price of the material made by the men, their wages are going to come down. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman can show me how that disastrous effect on the workers in the steel trade is going to be avoided, I shall be extremely pleased. I have been told, as some consolation, that we shall get more work in the steel trade. I do not mind telling
the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have always been more concerned about wages than about work. He will probably agree with me in that. He suggests that the miners can support the increased costs which will result from this tax as readily now as they could in 1924. I think he does not realise that the wages of miners, steel workers and others have been seriously reduced since 1924, and that it is an utter impossibility for any class of workers that has suffered such wage cuts as we have since 1924 to bear increased charges as readily as they could be borne in that year. I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is looking at this matter from one angle of view only, and is not looking at it all round. Personally, I am not enamoured of this tax as a method of dealing with a very grave problem. On the other hand, I am not going to oppose relief, as such, to the iron and steel industry of this country, but I do want to find out, if I can, how the wages of the workpeople in the iron and steel industry are going to be saved under this proposal, and, until I get some sort of assurance on that point, I have no option but to vote for the Amendment.

Mr. KELLY: Like the last speaker, I am very much concerned about the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland regarding the raising of wages. I am not going to ask any questions about the steel trade, because that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. J. Baker), but I do wish to know how this proposal is going to bring them an advance in wages.

Major ELLIOT: If the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting him, what I was speaking of was the existence of wages—a much more fundamental thing.

Mr. KELLY: I take it that the belief of the Government is that, provided they impose a burden upon industry, industries which are compelled to use commercial vehicles, and which will have to bear an extra burden in the shape of this tax on the oils that they use, will be able to advance wages. That, surely, is a very curious line of argument for the Government to adopt, and, when we consider the amount of these oils that is used by industries such as engineering,
shipbuilding, agriculture, the chemical trades—prosperous as they are—and the food trades in particular, which make a very large use of petrol-driven vehicles, we have not had anything from the Government to show that they will thereby be enabled to do more trade and make more profits out of which to pay higher wages. The last statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was that, provided this money is raised by means of this tax on oil, the mines will become prosperous, the miners will be able to bring up more coal, and it will be possible to dispose of that coal. That, I think, is asking the country to believe something that cannot possibly happen.
It is suggested that industry can be made more prosperous and more trade can be obtained by imposing for the next 18 months an additional 4d. per gallon on petrol, and that that will mean higher wages. I hope that the country will treat that suggestion in the way that it ought to be treated. I would like to think that the proposal of the Government will mean advances in wages, but I can assure the Under-Secretary for Scotland that quite recently, in some negotiations with regard to wages, a supporter of the Government, who at one time sat in the House of Commons for a considerable period, stated that it was impossible even to think in terms of an advance in wages, because this extra charge for petrol would mean an increase in the price of various articles used in the domestic circle, and, instead of an easement, it would be a greater burden, certainly for some time to come; and for that reason he refused an advance in wages to something like 600,000 people who are employed in the industry in question. Despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman said he had answered most of the points that had been put up, I think we are entitled to hear how this is going to help these industries into prosperity so that the higher wages hinted at by the Government will be paid. I shall certainly vote for the reduction of the tax in the hope of winning through and destroying this part of the Budget.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Despite the fact that we want help for the miners, I am going to vote against this Clause because I feel we are going to get nothing whatever out of it in the shape of wages and we shall be called upon to pay over-
head charges to a greater extent than we are now. The proposals of this Bill will not make up the losses the owners say they are making month by month. They will get something like 5½d. out of the oil tax, whereas our losses are 7d. a ton, so that the miners will get no wage increase at all. It reminds me of the way the last subsidy was given to firms that were making money to the detriment of their fellows who were not making money. That policy apparently is to be followed in regard to the oil tax. Goods have to be conveyed to the place where they are purchased largely by oil, and the miserably low wages that are paid are to be further reduced because of the increased burden thrown upon the people with whom we have to deal. Men women and children are starving in Durham. If hon. Members will come with me I will take them to see it for themselves. I see it only too often, but I shall be glad to go with any Member who desires to know the truth of the position in the coal area. The, proposals they are making will not help the people at all but will drive them still further down. The day will come when common justice will be done to those who need the help of the nation. Are you going to let the coal trade go out of the country?

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is going rather far from the Amendment.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I apologise, Sir, but the whole thing was based on the idea of doing something for the coal trade. That is why this tax is imposed on petrol. The conditions laid down by the Government in this proposal are not going to help us but are going to make things worse than they are at present. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland should take this seriously to heart. We should help those who need help, and not hand money over to firms who are multiplying their profits every year. What comes out of this will go to the coalowners. They cannot say they are not making profits. As Mr. Taylor said, when the Durham miners were discussing the last wages agreement, "We cannot say we have lost money, but we have not earned as much as we think we ought to have earned."

The CHAIRMAN: This is really outside the question of the 4d. duty on petrol.

Mr. RICHARDSON: This 4d. will go to the people who have not made losses, but the men who have suffered something like 200 per cent. between the highest and the lowest are not to get anything at all. They have done everything to make the position better by sacrifice——

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is discussing the Bill that is to be brought in in November.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I am very glad hon. Members on this side have dealt with the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) in which he was careful not to show in what way others than the owners are going to benefit by the tax. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. B. Hudson) made a statement, which was to some extent vouched for by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, that this was in some way immediately going to improve the position of the miners. I should be delighted to understand when and how that relief, which is estimated at 6d. a ton, is going to come about. In South Wales for some time past we have been suffering a loss of 1s. 6d. per ton on all coal produced. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the miners would not complain when they understood the duty, and would not be parties to refusing to help the restoration of their trade. In 1924, the time the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of, the average wage of the miner in South Wales was somewhere in the region of £4 a week. To-day it is less than £2 10s., for those who are regularly at work, and we know, from the increase of rates that is taking place with regard to the vehicles used by the miners and other overhead charges, that an increased charge of somewhere about 1s. a week has been put on, and the miner to that extent will be worse off when this tax comes fully into operation by 1s. a week, with a wage of £2 10s., than he was in 1924 with a wage of £4 a week. We shall have to wait until 1929—I should put it at 1930—before even that 6d. a ton is granted, if it comes at all. In the meantime, I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to show us how we are going to sustain our men in that depressed coalfield, where we have 70,000
men unemployed, and industry is almost at a standstill. I come from a district—the Rhondda Valley—where I have been connected publicly and officially with the coal trade for 33 years. I have never seen anything similar to what the men are suffering at the present moment. They do not know where to turn. They cannot possibly bear the taxation which will be the outcome of this proposal; it cannot do otherwise than make their position worse. I should be pleased if the hon. and gallant Gentleman could show us how there can be any relief to these hardly depressed people who are unable to pay their way at the present time.

Mr. MARCH: If it is thought by the Government or by any representative of the Government that this duty is going to benefit any particular industry, I can tell them that it is not going to benefit the transport industry. Those who are engaged in the commercial road transport of this country, and there are large numbers of them, know that to add 4d. per gallon to the cost of petrol will mean, in many instances, at least an extra 1s. a day. If you add 1s. a day to the cost of each of these vehicles, it will mean that in the long run you will curtail the number of these vehicles on the roads. Probably some might say that that would be of great benefit. It might benefit the pedestrians, and it might benefit some of the other people using other types of vehicles. At the same time it would mean the displacement of labour, and that would mean throwing more persons into the unemployed market. It would appear that if you increase labour in one direction you are going to decrease it in another. This proposal will also tend towards decreasing wages. A short time ago an hon. Member said that the engineers were unable to get an increase of wages owing to the extra taxes which are being imposed upon the industry. The same thing applies to the transport workers. If they do not get an increase in wages, it will mean that they will make a big stir about it, and they will not bless the Government for the work they are doing in transferring one of their liabilities to someone else. Another thing that will probably happen will be that as well as displacing men the employers will be asking their employés to
work an increased number of hours. We know that the Government will not mind that. They are out for increasing hours as far as they possibly can whenever they get the chance. But they will have something to do, for the transport industry is pretty well organised and will be able to show to the Government the injury they are doing to the trade.
We have been given to understand that this proposal is going to be of benefit to local authorities. Have hon. Members thought about the position of local authorities who are using petrol-driven vehicles? Do they realise what it will mean to them? Hon. Members opposite who talk about relieving the rates, should realise that this proposal will entail a further administrative charge upon the local authorities in respect of the work they are doing in the public service. A question was asked to-day as to whether some remission could be given in respect of fire brigades and ambulances which use petrol. It was said that no relief can be given to them. Therefore, this will mean increasing the administrative charges of the local authorities, and the cost will have to go on to the rates. Their charges will be heavier and their expenditure will be heavier; it will be putting them at a disadvantage instead of helping them. This proposal will also have a bad effect on a large number of trades as well as upon road transport. There are large numbers of firms engaged in the confectionery trade, the bakery trade and in the milk trade using motor vehicles, and the addition of the duty on petrol will entail heavy additional expenditure upon them. It will probably mean the cutting down of a number of vehicles, a reduction of labour, and an increase of hours. We are strongly opposed to the Government's attitude in connection with the imposition of a duty of 4d. per gallon on petrol. It might have been imposed upon private cars. The owners of those cars who use them for pleasure probably would not make much stir about it, but those who are in business will feel the effect of this duty, and the road transport industry will feel it very severely indeed. I shall have very great pleasure in going into the Division Lobby against this proposal.

Mr. GIBBINS: The surprising thing about the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was that this duty
will in some way provide wages where wages do not exist at the present time. I hope that I am not misrepresenting or misunderstanding the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but in reply to the case that the miners and those who are getting small wages to-day would be compelled to pay this duty, he stated that the most important thing about it was that the effect of the duty would be to provide wages, and that that was fundamental. This point, for once in a way, brings out the fact that the present Government have it in their minds that this is going to be a solution of the present unemployment in this country. Speaking for a Division where most of the work is distributive work and work that is done by dockers and transport workers, I would ask what hope can be held out to those people that by the imposition of a duty of 4d. upon petrol they are going to have increased employment? The point has been well made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan), that while the imposition of this duty is going to be made forthwith, we are asked to wait for two years, until November, 1929, before any benefit can accrue to the rates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking on Saturday, not only referred to this as something that is going to do good, but also talked as if the conditions of the workers and the unemployed were so much better than they were in 1924, and that their wages were £100,000,000 better than they were in 1924. This is not borne out by the experience some of us have in our constituencies up and down the country.
To tell us that the imposition of a duty of 4d. on petrol is going to make the lot of the workers in this country better is a mockery. It is a mockery of the unemployed. It is hypocrisy of the worst possible type, to try and fool the people of this country with this sham, with this statement that the imposition of the duty is going to make their lot any better. They will know very well that it is only something held up as a sop for the next General Election and that when that time comes should a Conservative Government again be placed in office, it would mean another four or five years of incompetency in regard to the conduct of the affairs of this country. At the docks of
Liverpool one-third, and sometimes two-thirds, of the men are unable to find work, and to tell them that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has imposed a duty of 4d. on petrol and that that is going to ease their troubles, is—there are no other words in which to describe it—hypocrisy of the worst possible type.

Mr. BATEY: I want to support this Amendment. I should not support it if I though; the duty was going to help industry, but, in my opinion, the mining industry certainly will get no relief at all from the tax. The first week-end after he introduced the Budget, the Chancellor went up to Newcastle and addressed a very large Conservative meeting. He said:
We"—
I do not know whom he meant by "we"; I take it he meant the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister—
We have launched our advance against what I call the Hindenburg line—the threefold line—against the triple entrenchment of unemployment, trade depression, and rating muddle.
He made the North Country folk believe that the Government had really launched an advance, but a day or two later he came down to the, House and was in retreat over the Paraffin Duty. He led that meeting to believe that by this tax they had launched this advance against unemployment, trade depression, and rating muddle. This duty and this scheme will not find work for a single man in my district. We have 60,000 miners in Durham without employment and with no hope. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer believe that this Petrol Duty is going to find work for one unemployed miner? If he does, I do not. I cannot understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to Newcastle and leading these people to believe that this was going to solve the unemployment problem. It will do nothing for trade depression either. He not only held out this scheme and this duty as a solution of unemployment but as a solution for trade depression. The mining industry is in a terrible condition, and, if there is a trade that can be described as being depressed, it is the mining industry. We were told only last week by the Secretary for Mines that we were going to get 2½d. per ton in relief from rates and 4d. relief
on freight carriage. Altogether, the mining industry is going to get 6½d. per ton relief from this scheme.
The Minister of Mines on another day said that the deficit in the mining industry on the last ascertainment came to no less than 8½d. per ton. If we are going to get 6½d. per ton by way of relief and we have a deficit of 8½d., I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how this is going to assist trade depression and the mining industry? It is not going to get us a single order or set a single man to work, but will leave the mining industry just as it is at the present time. This scheme is not going to reduce costs or selling prices. All that it will do will be to help the owners to reduce the deficit which stands against the miners on each ascertainment. The miners will not be owing the employers so much on each ascertainment. The debts that the miners owe to the employers have reached a colossal figure in my own county as is shown by the deficit under each monthly ascertainment. The miners in the county of Durham at the present time have owing to the employers——

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see that this has anything to do with the question of 4d. on petrol.

Mr. BATEY: I want to be in order, and I say that this duty and this scheme are going to do nothing for the mining industry and are simply going to be—as the other Government schemes have been—a delusion, making the people believe that the Government are going to do something when they are not. I was pointing out—and I hope it will be considered that I am in order—that the raising of this Petrol Duty and the launching of this scheme will merely reduce the monthly deficits, and the miners will not be owing the employers so much, but it will not reduce prices. If the mining industry wants anything at the present time, it is something which will reduce costs and selling prices. This

scheme, which will not meet the deficits, will not reduce selling prices of export coal. Although we get 4d. per ton for freight carrying, it will not reduce the selling prices of export coal by a halfpenny a ton. Nor will it reduce the price of domestic coal or industrial coal. If the Committee carries this duty and puts this 4d. on petrol, it will simply be leaving the mining industry just where it is to-day. I notice that in his brilliant speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only said that it was a cure for unemployment——

Mr. CHURCHILL indicated dissent.

Mr. BATEY: He said it was launching an advance on the Hindenburg line against unemployment, trade depression, and rating muddle. If he meant anything, the impression that these people must have got was that this scheme would be a cure for unemployment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. I have repeatedly said that we do not put this scheme forward as a cure-all, but that it will mitigate and benefit.

Mr. BATEY: Will it mitigate? I submit that it will not find work for a single unemployed miner or mitigate trade depression in the coal industry. The coal industry will be just as depressed when the scheme is passed as it is at present. It will not relieve the rating muddle, because what we want in the distressed areas is something which will reduce local rates and this will not touch them. All you are going to do is to pay three-quarters of the rates of the employers and assist in regard to freight carriage, so that it cannot touch local rates which will be left where they are at present. Because I believe that after this duty is passed we are going to be just where we are at present, I have very much pleasure in going into the Lobby and voting against this duty.

Question put, "That the word 'four-pence' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 115.

Division No. 181.]
AYES.
[9.35 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bennett, A. J.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Atkinson, C.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Balniel, Lord
Berry, Sir George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Betterton, Henry B.


Apsley, Lord
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Blundell, F. N.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Boothby, R. J. G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hartington, Marquess of
Preston, William


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Raine, Sir Walter


Brass, Captain W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rees, Sir Beddo[...]


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hills, Major John Waller
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hilton, Cecil
Remer, J. R.


Burman, J. B.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Rentoul, G. S.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cassels, J. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ropner, Major L.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Christie, J. A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Rye, F. G.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Salmon, Major I.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kennedy, A, R. (Preston)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cooper, A. Duff
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandon, Lord


Cope, Major Sir William
Lamb, J. Q.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Couper, J. B.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Loder, J. de V.
Shepperson, E. W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Long, Major Eric
Skelten, A. N.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Looker, Herbert William
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
MacIntyre, Ian
Storry-Deans, R.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
McLean, Major A.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Drewe, C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Eden, Captain Anthony
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Ellis, R. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


England, Colonel A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tinne, J. A.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Meyer, Sir Frank
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mocre, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Forrest, W.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Nelson, Sir Frank
Watts, Sir Thomas


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wells, S. R.


Gates, Percy
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Gower, Sir Robert
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nuttall, Ellis
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Oakley, T.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Withers, John James


Grotrian, H. Brent
Pennefather, Sir John
Womersley, W. J.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Penny, Frederick George
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wragg, Herbert


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perring, Sir William George
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pitcher, G.



Hammersley, S. S.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Captain Viscount Curzon.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bondfield, Margaret
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Baker, Walter
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Broad, F. A.
Charleton, H. C.


Barr, J.
Bromfield, William
Cluse, W. S.


Batey, Joseph
Bromley, J.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scurr, John


Connolly, M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sexton, James


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Crawford, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrence, Susan
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Day, Harry
Lawson, John James
Smillie, Robert


Dennison, R.
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lunn, William
Stamford, T. W.


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gardner, J. P.
Mackinder, W.
Strauss, E. A.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Sutton, J. E.


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tinker, John Joseph


Greenall, T.
Murnin, H.
Townend, A. E.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold
Varley, Frank B.


Groves, T.
Owen, Major G.
Viant, S. P.


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Watts-Morgan Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.
Westwood, J.


Harris, Percy A.
Purcell, A. A.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, Right Hon A. (Burnley)
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wright, W.


Hollins, A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out from the word "twenty-eight," in line 8, to the word "and," in line 9.
This Amendment proposes to omit from the Clause the words
and on all hydrocarbon oils so imported before that date,
the date in question being 25th April, 1928. I move it as a protest against the vicious system which is now growing up of making these new duties retrospective. It is based on a thoroughly unsound principle and is liable to very grave abuse. It has been argued that in some cases, in anticipation of new taxation, merchants have made considerable importations of certain articles, but that suggestion is not made in this case, and apparently the proposal is made in this instance in order to increase the revenue from the duty. I assume that any money which has already been collected would be returned if my Amendment were carried.
Apart from the effect of the duty on petrol for motor purposes, this is a very serious thing in relation to those industries in which oils are largely used for the manufacture of paints and varnishes. Those industries require to have certain quantities in hand in order to carry out contracts. Business agreements have been made and quotations of prices have
been given to the users of paints and varnishes and the ordinary commercial stocks which these firms had in hand on 25th April for the purpose of carrying on their trade, ought not to be subject to this duty which, in some cases, will mean the conversion of a possible profit into a considerable loss. I should like to ask how much money has been collected in respect of oils which were in stock before the date of the imposition of the duty. We ought to be informed how much money the duty has already brought in. At any rate, we are justified in protesting against the very unsound policy of making new duties retrospective, and, unless I get a satisfactory answer I shall press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. CHURCHILL: As far as I am able to comprehend the argument of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, South-West (Mr. Harris), he wishes to exclude from the Customs Duties such oils as were not actually landed before the 25th of April, which is the operative date. At any rate, that is the effect of his Amendment. The word "imported" has a technical meaning. Section 7, Sub-section (2) of the Finance Act, 1901, enacts:
As respects the first levying or repealing of any duty of Customs (including any duty imposed by this Act), the time at which the importation of any goods shall be deemed to have had effect shall be the time
at which the entry of the goods under the Customs Act is delivered instead of the time mentioned in Section forty of the Customs Consolidated Act, 1876.
The entry is the formal document, and it is to that that we attach the significance of the word "imported." What is entered is imported. If the Customs duty on oils had been imposed in the usual form, the cargo steamer or oil tanker, or other vessel, on which entries had been passed before the 25th April would have escaped, although the vessels had not been discharged. There are three classes. There is the oil which is actually in the country, and which is covered by the Excise Duty; there is the oil which has not yet been entered, and there is the oil which, although it is deemed to be entered is still on board ship. What reason is there for exempting the last except it be that those persons who have oil which was entered but not landed would be able to put the duty in their own pockets? I cannot conceive that there is any advantage in leaving this gap between the Customs Duty and the Excise Duty. Obviously, in all forms of taxation there is a certain amount of leakage. Not everything that is taken from the public reaches the revenue, and we are often reminded that in other forms of taxation there is a certain amount of evasion. But I cannot see why those people who have entered their oil and imported it, though they have not actually landed it from the ship, should be in a privileged position and be able to charge the enhanced price of the duty on the oil, although they have not borne the tax. The Excise Duty is an important part of this year's oil revenue. There will be a certain amount of difficulty in its collection, but it has been well accepted and the oil companies have been most helpful in regard to it. By this Excise Duty we have gained £3,500,000 which otherwise would not have been collected; not on the oil which was entered but not landed, but on the whole of the imported oil in stock we have gained as much as £3,500,000 on account of the tax. If we had not done that, I think the vast bulk of it would have gone to the importer. I cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, after the word "gallon," to insert the words "on oils used in the
manufacture of paints, varnishes, or colours and".
I regret that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is not here to move this Amendment as he is well acquainted with this industry. He has another engagement which prevents his being present at the moment. In this Amendment we are proposing that the oils used in the manufacture of paint, varnishes or colours should be exempt from the duty of 4d. per gallon, which means that the raw material which forms the basis of these paints, colours and varnishes, would not be taxed under the Budget proposals. We have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his sole intention in raising this money is to help industry. How is he going to help industry if he taxes the raw material of this particular industry? In the last few years it has developed to a greater extent than at any time and is now able so meet the demands made upon it, but just when they are in this position the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "I want to help and assist you and, therefore, I am going to ask you to pay 4d. per gallon for all the spirits you need for your paints, colours and varnishes."
I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain why, if he wants to help industry, he imposes this particular charge. Is it the intention of the party opposite to tax the raw materials of industry? That is what is meant by the imposition of this 4d. per gallon. Anyone who knows Hull, or Manchester or the East End of London, will understand that these particular firms have been doing well for the last three or four years and I hope the Chancellor will agree to accept an Amendment which will prevent the crippling of an industry which is trying to help itself. The Joint Industrial Council which has been set up for this particular trade was astounded at the proposal to tax it in this way. They say, "Here is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He desires to help the industry, yet he makes us pay an extra 4d. per gallon for petrol for our commercial vehicles and motor engines, and also an additional 4d. per gallon for the oils we use in our paints, varnishes and colours." I hope he will accept the Amendment, which will prevent the crippling of this industry.

Mr. G. THORNE: I rise to support this Amendment, not because I have any direct knowledge of the matters involved, but in order to state views that have been represented to me by those who have. I hold in my hand a letter which I have received from a member of a firm which carries on probably one of the largest varnish and paint works in the world. In the course of it, referring to the Budget Duties on turpentine and white spirit, there are these words:
This places a heavy burden on the varnish and paint industry, which cannot in the main be passed on to our customers. We as a trade feel that we are being most unfairly treated in being made to pay for a rating scheme which, being intended for the benefit of the country as a whole, should not repose for its finance on a limited number of businesses. No advantage whatever can come to anyone engaged in our industry; in fact, in many cases these new Duties will far outweigh any advantage from de-rating.
I have also received from the Midland Varnish, Paint and Colour Manufacturers' Association another letter, in which complaint is made of the Duties in resolutions passed by that Association—that it is a tax on the raw material of an important industry amounting, in the case of white spirit, to 40–50 per cent., and that it imposes on a single industry a burden which should be distributed more evenly over the whole country. I do not think that any words of mine can add to the direct information conveyed in those letters, and therefore I support the Amendment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course it must be admitted, at the outset, that where this Duty affects petrol or turpentine or white spirit used in the manufacture of other commodities, a situation of a rather more complicated character arises than is evinced in the general working of the Duty as a whole. Quite a number of different trades are affected in different ways and to different degrees. There are the trades which use turpentine or white spirit as an ingredient for their finished products and where the ingredient remains in the finished product. There are trades which use white spirit or turpentine as an ingredient, but where the ingredient does not appear in the finished product. Lastly, there are trades which use turpentine or petrol or white spirit as a solvent pure and simple, and recover what they have used, or the bulk of it,
again and again. Wherever the oil is used as an ingredient which manifests itself in the finished product we give a rebate on the export; but where it is used as a solvent or as a disappearing ingredient there is much more difficulty.
10.0 p.m.
I have come to the conclusion, very regretfully, that I must ask the Committee to support the Government in resisting the whole series of these Amendments for exemptions from the general duty. They do not cover a very wide field. Out of 800,000,000 gallons which we are dealing with, only 50,000,000 gallons are for non-road uses. We are now concerned with only one-sixteenth, therefore. If we were to begin giving exemptions, I do not know where the process would end. I am sure that every single demand met or exemption given, even where a hard case was shown, would open the door to another case so closely akin that at once another exemption would have to take a place by its side. So we should move on from point to point, from trade to trade, and from exemption to exemption, until the whole working of this Duty would cease to be the simple proposition that it is now and would become the most intricate matter of exemption and allowance and so forth.
It must be remembered that one of the reasons which the oil companies put forward to justify their charge of an extra penny on the old Petrol Duty was the amount of labour caused by the exemptions which were given in all kinds of directions. We have tried to secure the collection of this tax with the minimum diversion in any direction to private interests, and in order to do that very strict and austere requirements were necessary in excluding anything in the nature of exemptions. I ask myself whether the hardship amounts to such substantial proportions that we ought to abandon these principles. In the main, and so far as this group of industries is concerned, it is only a very small part of the area of the tax and they will, to a large extent, be safeguarded against any unfair incidence of the tax so far as foreign competition is concerned, both by means of the duty on importation and the drawback on exports. That is our intention. For the rest, they are undoubtedly entitled to pass the tax on to the consumer and in one way or
another, I have very little doubt, they will be able to do so. There may be some very minor instances where they will not be able to pass the whole of it on to the consumer because of foreign competition, but these instances are all very small and are not to be compared with the grave issues which will arise once we start breaking in on the sanctity and integrity of the tax.
Moreover, it must be remembered that there is an off-set to this burden in respect of the rating relief. Some of those concerned showed me figures which were calculated on a pessimistic view of their misfortunes and an equally pessimistic view of what they were going to get in the way of relief. Even on this showing, it will be found that a very considerable off-set, if not a complete off-set in these cases will be afforded by the rating relief. Whether that be so or not, there is no tax which you can impose which does not tread on somebody's toes. Wherever you begin with the imposition of taxation, there are some trades which are affected more than others. Last year, to my great regret, I had to put something extra on tobacco. I had to get that taxation as far as possible from the profits of the tobacco industry, and we are getting the increased revenue without any increase in the cost of cigarettes. Wherever you turn in these matters of taxation, you cannot do anything without its being said that there is a little more imposed on this class than on that class, or a little more on this trade than on that trade, or that you have given some little advantage more here than you have given there.
If you are to proceed upon the basis that you must never give any favour, however small, to a flourishing industry, and you must never inflict any injury, however small, upon any industry which is not prosperous, then you had better buy a large consignment of plaster of Paris in which the House of Commons should ensconce itself. Of course, there is no tax which is not bound in some way or other in its ramifications to cause some anomaly or hardship. So far as this duty is concerned, we are like people in a diving bell; we cannot afford to open a single chink, otherwise the water will rush in and we shall be drowned. In giving the rebate which has been
asked for by the hon. Members who moved the Amendment on their paints, their varnishes, or their colours, I have no doubt that I should be drawn into giving a rebate on feeding stuffs, petrol used in dyeing and cleaning, the making of gloves, and so forth, and from that I am sure that I should come up against the fishermen who, apparently, although they use kerosene to drive their boats, use petrol sometimes to start their engines, and I should also be up against the Minister of Agriculture, whose farmers are using a small quantity of petrol in order to get their kerosene-driven tractors into initial activity. If we were to concede any one of these points we should erect a whole complicated system of administration which would vitiate the working of the duty and probably cause a depletion in the Revenue which in the present stringency I am not able to afford.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has used a figure of 50,000,000 gallons as being for non-road users That means, transferred into cash, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is placing upon these productive industries by his taxation proposals a further burden of £1,000,000 a year. I arrive at that figure by taking one-sixteenth of the total money which he estimates his duty will bring in to the Exchequer during the coming year. One million pounds a year is the contribution which these trades will pay to the Exchequer by this duty. That is a direct tax upon productive industry. While on the one hand the Chancellor of the Exchequer is by this policy of largesse handing out large sums of money to people who do not need it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, to people who do not deserve it and those who are prosperous, on he other hand he is taking £1,000,000 from these people, and according to the letters which have been read to the Committee they are unable to pass it on. The right hon. Gentleman is creating an injustice in regard to this matter. Cannot he right it before the Committee stage is over? He twitted me because of some other Amendments to Clauses which are to be debated a little later to-night. May I remind him that he is only doing a certain thing in a later Clause because in his first Budget he did a great injustice to the sugar
refining industry. By Clause 4, which we shall discuss shortly, he is trying to rectify the wrong.

Mr. CHURCHILL: You approve of that.

Sir G. COLLINS: I opposed the wrong, and later this evening perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer may hear what I have to say. This evening, as four years ago, he is creating an injustice. Are we to wait another four years before the right hon. Gentleman rectifies the wrong? I hope that before the Committee stage is over, we may have some further guidance from the Government.

Mr. HARDIE: In putting on a tax it is always well to consider whether or not the effect of the tax may not be a loss to some trade. I would like to refer to the high polish on certain goods manufactured in England which go abroad, in the last three weeks I have been asked to see samples of work done by what is called a spirit which has to be purchased now because, since the duty has come into being, the people are unable to pay the price of the spirit which they formerly used. If they were to pay that price on the amount of spirit which they would use, it would mean a serious loss. Consequently, a great many firms have been forced to buy an inferior spirit. When that spirit has been applied to wood of very fine workmanship it looks all right for one or two days, but on the fifth day the polish usually develops white spots. A technical chemist who has been brought in to give an expert reason for this condition of things, finds that it is due to an impure class of spirit. That means that these firms who cannot afford to lose their trade in furniture continue to buy the spirit which they formerly used, and if they are to go on buying that spirit they are bound to lose orders when they come into competition with firms in other countries. Do the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman approve of this, or has he any suggestion to make in order to prevent this kind of thing from taking place?
In regard to the industrial spirit which is used, is there any formula adopted which would protect the basis of the spirit? Take the question of what is known as sub-turps, that is a substitute
for turpentine. The moment you begin to deal with that, you run the risk of spoiling some very fine woodwork that has been completed by expert cabinet makers. These things have evidently not been examined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I challenge him to get up and say that he has given his personal attention to them.

Mr. HARRIS: We listened to a remarkable speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seems to forget that nobody asked him to impose this tax. It germinated entirely in his own mind, and the justification for the tax has been that it is imposed in order to help industry. We have put an unanswerable case for taking off this duty, because, after all, it is a tax on a raw material. Here is an important ingredient in a very important industry which is going to be taxed. Every factory has to be painted, and a part of the cost of running a factory is the cost of keeping it in good repair. The Chancellor's boast has been that the money from this tax will be a great stimulus to industry, but one of the biggest charges on industry is the cost of maintenance of factories, the cost of painting and repairs, and paint comes into almost every factory and every industry. There is another phase of great importance. The Minister of Health has been responsible for a very elaborate scheme to stimulate housing, and here we are going to have a paint tax which will affect every house. For about 21 years I have been on the Housing Committee of the London County Council, and there I have found that one of the most serious things has been the heavy cost of maintenance. One of our difficulties in making two ends meet has been the heavy cost of all the raw materials that we have had to use, and particularly the cost of painting houses and other buildings, and here is a case of a tax on the raw material of paint.
It is up to the Minister to get round any difficulty that he might see in the way of distinguishing between petrol used in the manufacture of paint and petrol used for power purposes, because it is not fair, or just or reasonable to single out one industry for a particular burden of taxation. All over the country there are large varnish and paint manufacturers, employing a great number of people. Cheap paints and varnishes are essential to the
whole of our industrial organisation, and I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his expert Customs officials, should get round the difficulty of granting a drawback when oil is used for the manufacture of paint. If there is a will, there is a way to be found, but the right hon. Gentleman does not like to make concessions. Sooner or later he will have to make them, because when this tax comes into operation there will be such an outcry all over the country that, just as in the case of kerosene he had to give way, he will have to come down in a white sheet and ask the House to distinguish between oil used for the manufacture of paint and oil used for power purposes. I support the Amendment.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: We heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer just now that if he allowed any other chinks to be made in his diver's bell he was liable to be drowned. I should have thought that, after the wide chink made when he agreed to exempt kerosene from the tax, he must already be in very great danger of drowning so far as this scheme is concerned.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Watertight compartments.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am not sure about watertight compartments, because it is plain from what I have heard that some people, in spite of what the Chancellor said, will be able to use kerosene in internal combustion engines with the aid of a little device attached to the engine. So he is probably going to lose pretty seriously in that direction. The whole speech of the Chancellor upon this Amendment shows how completely unsound it is to levy taxation in this way for any great Government scheme. He said that he was unable to do this, that, and the other thing without injuring some other member of the community. That supports the whole case of the Members on this side, that indirect taxation is not the way to raise revenue for the great purposes of national reconstruction and development, and that if you really want a scientific basis of taxation you have to go back to the elementary principle of taxation, and levy your impost in relation to the ability of the particular individual to bear the burden.
The Chancellor said that it was impossible to make certain adjustments in
this tax if he is to give the great relief to industry which he says that he is going to give. As a matter of fact, there must be many of the larger concerns which are beginning to amalgamate their capital, although they may be indulging in a varied number of productions, who will have very much the same experience as the co-operative productive factories in this matter. The actual rate relief which the right hon. Gentleman hopes to distribute by means of the receipts from the Petrol Duty will work out at something like one-quarter of 1 per cent. of the turnover of the productive factories, and yet on every hand there will be corresponding charges made against these factories, either in their production or in their actual distributive charges. You will get relief upon a factory in Manchester, but you will have to pay more for your raw material in the paint works at Derby. You will get relief on the boot and shoe works in Leicester, but you will have to pay more for your raw material in the cake mills in Liverpool. You will get relief on flour mills in Hull, but you will have to pay more for distribution of your food supplies. The whole scheme, if it is to be any real advantage to industry, seems to be completely unsound, and more unsound when you remember that two-thirds of the production of industry in this country is not for the export market, but for the home market, and therefore the tax to be imposed on the raw material of factories and on the actual cost of distribution must be of great importance. I hope, therefore, that we shall continue to oppose this tax and support this Amendment in the Lobby.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I should like to call attention to the remarkable defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this Clause as it stands. He says, in effect, "This Clause is unworkable unless I keep in it an injustice which I admit, an injustice which is a very special burden laid upon a particular industry, which happens to be one of these productive industries that I have set out to benefit. Nevertheless, I must strike this blow at it, and so much is the Bill rooted in injustices, that if I take this injustice away, the whole thing will fall flat." But it does not stop there. He says: "Look at the further Amendments. If I remove this one injustice,
to which attention is now being called, I shall be called upon to remedy one, two, three, four and five further injustices, which are also involved in my Clause as it stands." Because the whole essence of this method of taxation is to collect in an indiscriminate way, which hits some people harder than others, and hits many others than the people who are intended to benefit, therefore the Chancellor must stand his ground and defend this flagrant injustice for fear that he will be called upon to remedy others afterwards. The moral is that the whole basis of this form of taxation is bad, and that we should rather have supported this reform by some taxation which could have been distributed according to need instead of falling arbitrarily upon those who can ill afford to bear it.

Mr. PALING: The Chancellor admitted in his speech that if he could have avoided this hardship to these particular industries he would have done so, but that immediately he attempted to touch the duty it involved him in other complications, and that in order to avoid this he was going through with the duty. I remember that in introducing the Kerosene Duty he made the same apology. He did not want to include kerosene, but it would be so difficult if he did not; the number of evasions would be so numerous that the tax would become useless. Apparently some pressure was brought to bear upon him by members of his own party, afraid of losing votes, and he found it possible to swallow all that he had said and to withdraw the duty on kerosene. As it has been found possible to get on without

that duty, I am quite certain that if the Chancellor applied his ingenuity to this case he would find a road out of the difficulty.

I understand from the letters which have been read that it is impossible for those engaged in this industry to pass this duty on to the consumer, and that the amount of relief they will get in rates is small as compared with what they will have to pay in duty. They are afraid that the profits they have been making—and I understand they are making decent profits now, though not very great—will be reduced. I am afraid if they find they cannot pass the charge on to the consumer that the next source to which they will look for relief will be a reduction in the wages of the people who work for them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated at various times that it is his intention in giving relief to the railway companies that they shall not take advantage of it to increase their profits, but that the consumer is to get the benefit. As he is prepared to protect the consumer in that connection I ask him whether he will protect the workers should these industries, unable to pass the charge on to the consumer, seek to reduce, the wages of their workpeople? If he will say he will not make this an excuse for those people to reduce wages, we shall be able to support this with much greater pleasure than we do at the present time.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 241.

Division No. 182.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hardie, George D.


Baker, Walter
Dalton, Hugh
Harney, E. A.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harris, Percy A.


Barr, J.
Day, Harry
Hayday, Arthur


Batey, Joseph
Dennison, R.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Dunnico, H.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Bondfield, Margaret
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hirst, G. H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hollins, A.


Broad, F. A.
Fenby, T. D.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Bromfield, William
Gardner, J. P.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Bromley, J.
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gillett, George M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gosling, Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Charleton, H. C.
Greenall, T.
Kelly, W. T.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kennedy, T.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Lawrence, Susan


Compton, Joseph
Groves, T.
Lawson, John James


Connolly, M.
Grundy, T. W.
Lee, F.


Cove, W. G.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lowth, T.


Lunn, William
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Thurtle, Ernest


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Tinker, John Joseph


Mackinder, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Tomlinson, R. P.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Scrymgeour, E.
Townend, A. E.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Scurr, John
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Morris, R. H.
Sexton, James
Varley, Frank B.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Viant, S. P.


Murnin, H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Naylor, T. E.
Shinwell, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Oliver, George Harold
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wellock, Wilfred


Owen, Major G.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Westwood, J.


Palin, John Henry
Siesser, Sir Henry H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Paling, W.
Smillie, Robert
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Snell, Harry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Potts, John S.
Stamford, T. W.
Windsor, Walter


Purcell, A. A.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wright, W.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Strauss, E. A.



Riley, Ben
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ritson, J.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton), E.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dixey, A. C.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Drewe, C.
Jephcott, A. R.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Apsley, Lord
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Ellis, R. G.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Astor, Viscountess
England, Colonel A.
Lamb, J. Q.


Atkinson, C.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Balniel, Lord
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Loder, J. de V.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Long, Major Erie


Bennett, A. J.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Looker, Herbert William


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Fielden, E. B.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Betterton, Henry B.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lumley, L. R.


Blundell, F. N.
Forrest, W.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Ganzoni, Sir John
MacIntyre, Ian


Brass, Captain W.
Gates, Percy
McLean, Major A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macmillan, Captain H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Goff, Sir Park
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Burman, J. B.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Campbell, E. T.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cassels, J. D.
Hammersley, S. S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Christie, J. A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Clarry, Reginald George
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hills, Major John Waller
Nield Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cooper, A. Duff
Hilton, Cecil
Nuttall, Ellis


Cope, Major Sir William
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Oakley, T.


Couper, J. B.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pennefather, Sir John


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Penny, Frederick George


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Pilcher, G.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hume, Sir G. H.
Preston, William


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Price, Major C. W. M.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Raine, Sir Walter


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Ramsden, E.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Iveagh, Countess of
Rees, Sir Beddos




Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Skelton, A. N.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Warrender, Sir Victor


Remer, J. R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Rentoul, G. S.
Smithers, Waldron
Watts, Sir Thomas


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wells, S. R.


Ropner, Major L.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Rye, F. G.
Storry-Deans, R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Salmon, Major I.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wolmer, Viscount


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Womersley, W. J.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Tasker, R. Inigo
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wragg, Herbert


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sandon, Lord
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-



Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Tinne, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.



Shepperson, E. W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

Mr. KELLY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, after the word "gallon," to insert the words "on oil used by fishing vessels and."
The object of this Amendment is to exempt from the duty of 4d. per gallon the oil used in fishing vessels. The fishing industry, as we have heard many times in this Chamber, is an industry which requires assistance in order that it may develop. It has been working under great difficulties. The men concerned in it, and the owners of vessels, have found it very hard indeed to make anything approaching a reasonable livelihood, and yet, despite the hardships and difficulties of their calling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to raise money, is creating for them one of those injustices which are to be found in this Measure. Surely, if there is one industry in this country which might receive his assistance, and which is a productive industry—though I am not sure that he would agree with me on that point—it is an industry such as this, which ought not to have forced upon it a payment of 4d. per gallon on the oils that it uses.
The Chancellor a little earlier in the evening, told us that they used but a small amount of petrol in order to start the engine, so small that one need not trouble too much about it. I can assure him there are petrol-driven engines on these vessels, and that the amount they use is much more than the right hon. Gentleman indicated. This affects all those ports where they have been struggling to bring back the fishing industry into the position it held before the War. Now that there appears a chance of success, the Chancellor asks them to pay another 4d. a gallon in order that he may give this direct relief in
rating to certain other industries. I cannot understand the mind of the Government on this matter. I hope hon. Members opposite who represent districts that are dependent on the fishing industry will have the courage to come into the Lobby with us if the Chancellor refuses to accept the Amendment.

Commander WILLIAMS: I think this is an Amendment the Chancellor might possibly be able to accept without in any way hurting the sanctity or the integrity of this tax, because that was really the main argument he used a short time ago about other Amendments on roughly the same lines. The argument in favour of the duty as a whole is that it will in the main be paid by the comparatively prosperous distributing trade and luxury trades to help those industries which are not well off. Whatever else can be laid down about it, there is no doubt at all that the fishing industry has not been prosperous during the last year. Whatever the claims of the people on land, those who are directly operating at sea get none of the relief from rates which agriculture and other industries get. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in this one instance, where you have an industry that is separated from the whole of the rest of the industries concerned in the Budget, an industry in an entirely different position, without detracting from the tax, but rather adding to its usefulness, could he not meet a claim which on the whole is just and far removed from the other claims. I would also remind him of a speech which he made last year and of a speech which the Prime Minister made before the election. When he held another most important office on
the eve of a great national crisis, this industry, scattered right round the coast, helped him in a way very few other industries were able to do. Surely on this one Amendment he might exercise that clemency which we generally have exercised at least once or twice in the course of our Budget Debates and give this industry just this relief from a burden which will bear with exceptional hardness in many cases on the very smallest type of fishing vessel. The concession would not in any way make it difficult for him to collect the duty as a whole. Above all, he would be doing something which would help a class of men who are worthy of the best consideration at the present time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry that a public engagement which occasionally takes me out of the House prevented me from hearing the whole of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). I also regret very much that I did not hear the reasons of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for refusing the previous Amendment. I have since heard what they were, and they were very astonishing. The right hon. Gentleman pictured himself, I understand, as going down into the great depths, and at great pressure, in a diving-bell, and said that if he allowed one little chink in the diving-bell the green water would rush in and overwhelm him. But since he has introduced his Budget he has taken out a whole plate in the diving-bell by his concession to the country-dweller in throwing overboard his duty on paraffin. And be it noted, if he had not given this concession to the agricultural labourers, the farmers and the country-dwellers, there is not question that these fishermen for whom the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay and I am pleading would have had this concession. That is the extraordinary part of it.
If the agricultural Members in this House had not intimated to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury that they would be forced for once to vote against the Government, if these battalions from the backwoods had not come forward, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have dropped his Paraffin Duty and the fishermen would have had an
allowance in respect of the petrol used in their fishing vessels. Because he dropped the Paraffin Duty he says, "Well, now, of course, I cannot allow the farmer an allowance in respect of the petrol used for his agricultural machinery, his tractors and so on, but only in respect of that used for starting his machinery." The poor fisherman who does not get relief from the Paraffin Duty as does the farmer is in the same category as the farmer who uses petrol-driven machinery for plough[...]ng and other farming operations. He has to suffer in the same way by losing a rebate on petrol used in fishing vessels. I defy anyone in any part of the Committee, and even the Chancellor himself, to defend that on the grounds of equity and justice. The farmer gets relief on his petrol, and he is to get relief on the transport of his agricultural produce some time next year. The fisherman under this Budget gets absolutely no relief at all, unless he is the skipper or the owner of a steam trawler who uses coal. Then, next year, he will get a reduction in the price of coal as a result of the Budget, but the fisherman who uses petrol—the small fisherman, the little man, and the individual owner—gets no relief at all under this Budget. On the contrary, he gets an impost placed upon him.
Therefore, you have this position. Great trawler companies, some of them with a capital of £1,000,000, using coal-burning, deep-sea fishing trawlers, will at some time next year get a relief under the general scheme of the Government, but the little fishermen, the inshore men, those who use the smaller ports of the Kingdom, and the Scottish fishermen—I appeal to Scottish Members on this matter—not only get no relief, but they have to pay this taxation. We asked to-day at Question time for figures from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the amount of petrol that is actually used by the fishermn throughout the Kingdom. We cannot get the figures. They are not available. They cannot be given. The only thing we are told is that we can raise this matter on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. Very well, we raise it. I invite the right hon. Gentleman, if he can, to give the information, for we are entitled to it. We must have some figures to go upon. How much petrol is consumed by the fishing vessels? Obviously the Government will have infor-
mation of this kind. They must have some estimate, and what is this duty actually going to mean to them? I reinforce the plea made by the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay. The fishing industry to-day is suffering from very severe foreign competition. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Protection?"] Neither this Government nor any other Government could put a tax on fish. There will not be a tariff on fish. I represent a port which in recent months has produced the greatest amount of fish in any port in the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It may be temporary, perhaps, but we have actually beaten Grimsby. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) will agree with me that neither in Grimsby nor in Hull do the leaders of the industry for a moment suggest that this Government or a diehard Government, and certainly no Government from the Opposition parties should put a tariff on fish. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then why complain about foreign competition?"] Because foreign competition exists; but while there is foreign competition you must at least put no burden on British industry that the foreigner has not got to pay.
We ask only for a fair field and no favour. If you tax the petrol used by the British fishermen, and the Danish or German fisherman has not got to pay that tax, you are giving a bounty to the Danish or German competitor. No Free Trader has suggested that for a moment. That is the last thing that we suggest. The fishing industry is undergoing very severe competition indeed, and it is also going through a bad time, because when trade is bad, and there is much unemployment, unfortunately the people in this country, instead of looking on fish as a great staple food, look upon it as a luxury and knock off fish first of all and go on buying meat, bacon and so on. Therefore, one of the first industries to feel the pinch of bad times is always the fishing industry, and we have been feeling it now for a number of seasons in succession. There is general agreement that if we can help the fishing industry we should do so. If the amount of petrol involved is great, then the relief given to the fishing industry would be all the more valuable. If the amount of petrol involved, and therefore the duty, is small, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
will not feel it. I am sure that if he allows this little chink in the diving-bell, as he described it, to be added to the great aperture left by the dropping of the Paraffin Duty, it will be all the more reason for resisting other demands on his clemency and generosity. For this reason, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who on past occasions has been good enough to give small concessions, will on this occasion show the same statesmanlike realisation of the justice of every cause which I espouse.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not suspect me, at any rate on this occasion, of seeking to profane the sanctity of his Budget or split its integrity. This Amendment is essentially different from those with which the right hon. Gentleman lumped it in his last speech. It does not apply to an industry which will benefit along with others from this Budget. It applies to an industry which is at present in a serious plight and which will not benefit from the effects of the Budget. The object of raising the money which is to be raised by this duty is, we are told, to help productive British industry. It is not for me at this time to say whether the methods proposed are wise or foolish, are right or wrong, are well-conceived or ill-conceived—the object is to relieve British productive industries which are staggering out of the slough of post-War depression. Coal is going to be relieved of rates; agriculture, iron and steel, cotton, all the great productive industries are to be relieved—except one, and that the industry which is perhaps in the most serious position among all our industries. It is the oldest industry, and it is one in which, at the present time, the wages are far worse than the wages in any other great industry. It is an industry which rendered great service in the War, which endured great hardships, which offered heroic sacrifices, and provided an indispensable element in our sea defences against invasion and starvation. In times of peace it is an industry which supplies cheap nourishing and wholesome food to the people of this country. Yet this is to be the Cinderella of our industries. It is the one productive British industry which the Government are making no effort to help. We protest that it is in no condition to bear the extra burden which will be imposed
by this duty, and we appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to put it back in the position in which it was before he made the concession on the Kerosene Duty—to put it back in the position in which it was when he introduced the Budget and told the fishermen that they would be relieved of this duty.
The position of the fishing industry, especially that part of it which is mainly concerned with this Petrol Duty—namely, the herring and white fishing; and the crofter fishing in Scotland—grows worse from year to year. The Report of the Fishery Board for 1923 compared with the last Report shows the seriousness of its plight. Under every heading—numbers of men, numbers of boats, numbers of women, and other ancillary workers—by every criterion you can take—it will be seen the industry is declining. Let me quote the wages actually earned by the men in the herring fishing, because it is important that the right hon. Gentleman should realise from what resources these men will have to find the money to pay this duty which he thinks is so insignificant. The men in the herring fishing are share fishermen, and the net proceeds, after paying all gross expenses of the boat, are divided into three shares, namely, the labour share, the share for the nets, and the share for the boat. Owing to the depression in recent years very few of the men have the capital to hold shares in the nets or the boats.
11.0 p.m.
Those who depended only on the labour share got £5 10s. for eight weeks' winter fishing, or only 14s. a week; for eight weeks' summer fishing they got less than £20, and for the autumn fishing they got only £2, or less than 5s. a week. These are the official figures of the Fishery Board of Scotland. If you add to that £15 or £20 for such white fishing as they can get in the winter, these men over the whole year earned less than £1 per week net. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at the Reports of the Fishery Board he will see constant reference to the extreme depression which exists in this industry, which has got worse since 1923. This slight concession which was originally made, but which was clandestinely withdrawn—I say that because the House of Commons, the country, and the fishermen concerned, were never told at all—
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not realise that it was being withdrawn——

Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, yes.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Then I must repeat that it was clandestinely withdrawn, and without consulting the House of Commons or the country beforehand as to what was involved when the kerosene concession was made. It means that this industry is to bear the full rigour of this additional taxation without obtaining the compensating rating relief. It is not the case that these boats do not use petrol. They all use petrol. When the engine begins to fail and there is a critical time ahead they have to resort to the use of petrol to get going again. The smaller boats used by the crofter fishermen use petrol almost entirely. Therefore, I say that these men deserve special consideration. In 1923, the Prime Minister wrote to the Conservative candidate in East Aberdeenshire to this effect:
I fully realise the unfortunate position of the fishing industry on the East and North coasts of Scotland. It is the Government's intension to consider how assistance can best be given as the kernel of our policy at present is the abnormal unemployment in the country.
Since then nothing has been done for the industry. It has got worse, whether you consider it from the number of men employed or the number of boats engaged. All that the Government have done is to take away such little assistance as was given in 192[...] in the way of credits to enable them to supply themselves with gear and nets, and nothing at all has been put in its place. Now this additional taxation is to be imposed on the industry. Only last week the Prime Minister made another speech in Scotland and, referring to his respect for and sympathy with the fishing industry, said:
All I can say to them is that my friends in Scotland are studying with great care and sympathy this more difficult problem. It is being studied sympathetically and with all the consideration that we can give to it.
Four years after the promise of 1923 no action has been taken, and if that speech of the Prime Minister last week is not a hollow mockery, it is high time that the Government showed their earnestness
and sincerity in this matter by withdrawing this burden.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If I had realised that my hon. and gallant Friend was going to consume so much of his energy and our time in the very powerful oratorical effort which he has made, I would have interceded before and shortened our deliberations. I have been asked to give some information as to the actual burden of this tax upon British industry. Of course originally, when kerosene was included in the Budget proposals, I proposed that the oil tax should not apply either to the fishing industry or to the agricultural tractor; but when the tax on kerosene was dropped and it became desirable to simplify our procedure, I mentioned in my speech that the exemption would no longer apply in the case of the agricultural tractor, which only uses a very small quantity of petrol for starting purposes. I did not then mention the case of the fisherman, but as it subsequently appeared that exactly the same considerations applied, I authorised the withdrawal of the exemption which under the new conditions would be operative only in so far as petrol was concerned. De minimis non curat lex. In the first place it is calculated that the total consumption of oil by Scottish boats is 4,800,000 gallons a year. The petrol which is used is estimated at 175,000 gallons. Therefore, the tax on that works out at about £3,000. Of course one does not want to place any burden at all on this industry. I do not think that the amount, spread as it is over perhaps 2,000 boats, can be held to be a crushing or harsh burden. Nevertheless, of course, one must always remember that what may be very small from the point of view of the Government is not small to the consumer.
When we come to the case of England, the situation is slightly different. Where petrol is used practically entirely for the starting up of the engine, it does not cause serious difficulty, but it has emerged that there are numbers of small boats which are found to use petrol not only for starting purposes but for running. They are two-man and three-man boats. Their average consumption would be, of course, considerably higher than that of the boats which use petrol only for starting purposes. It is esti-
mated that the number of these boats would amount to 715. The cost of the duty falling upon the English and Welsh fishing industry is estimated to be £6,000, spread over the whole industry. Of that £6,000, it is probable that two-thirds may be assigned to the small vessels which use petrol not only for starting but for regular propulsion. So far as the boats which only use petrol, either in England or Scotland, for the purpose of starting, are concerned, I doubt if it would ever be worth their while to embark on the elaborate process of reclaiming the money, but it may be worth while in the case of those vessels that are dependent on petrol as the sole means of propulsion. If it were possible to set up a system of repayment, of recovery, for that is the only way in which it could be done, and if everybody in England and Wales—I have not calculated the figures for Scotland—claimed, not only those wholly dependent on its use for propulsion, but also those who use it only for starting, that would involve 9,000 separate repayments in respect of sums which would usually amount to under £1 each. The expense of such a system would be very considerable in proportion to the money involved. It is calculated that the administration cost might well be 25 per cent. on the £6,000 involved for England and Wales, and no doubt a similar proportion in respect of the £3,000 in the case of Scotland.
I should feel about this that it must be looked at in regard to the treatment which Parliament gives to the whole problem. If I were quite sure that this particular matter could be settled as a single, solitary exception to the whole of the Petrol Duty, I should be very disposed to give it careful consideration between now and the Report stage. If, however, it were to be used merely as a means of pressing forward the case of the commercial traveller, the doctor, the agricultural tractors, which are also getting their rating relief, and so forth, and were to be used as a means of involving us in all these complications, I should in the general interests of the tax as a whole, ask the Committee to support me in resisting the Amendment. We will see how we get on. I will readily undertake between now and the Report stage to study very carefully this elaborate system and see if there is a way
by which these small sums can be reclaimed without undue delay, red tape or cost. I will consider it with a desire to avoid these very laborious, costly and inconvenient arrangements. Rather than have it said that on this industry of very poor men—who face the storms and dangers of the sea and gather by their hard toil what is on all hands admitted to be a very frugal and meagre competence—we are placing some extra burden, I would be willing to face both the trouble and expense, provided at the same time that I could feel an assurance that the concession we were making would not lead to our being involved in further more serious and less defensible exceptions which would largely vitiate the efficiency of the duty.

Mr. E. BROWN: The whole Committee will welcome the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is obvious that individual Members are not entitled to speak for anybody else, but personally this industry means so much to me that it ought not to be made the shuttlecock of party politics at all. All who know anything about the men who deal with the fishing feel this much more seriously than as a mere party issue, and I would like to say that I hope the Chancellor will be able, not merely to consider this matter between now and the Report stage, and to meet the design of the Amendment, but to do it without any elaborate and complicated formula. It is true, as some of us tried to point out at Question time, that it is not merely a question of the five-men boat, which some of us know so well in the North and in Scotland where they use petrol to start the engine. Many a time, in running a boat of that kind, when the engine is not running free, the only thing a man can do is to turn off the petrol and turn on to the kerosene, but if you go to the smaller villages in the West of England that the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) and I know so well, if you go to the village called Cadgwith, by the Lizard, where the whole of the fishing population have little motor boats with two men and the engine in the boat is only suitable to be run by petrol, they do not use kerosene: and on top of that, when they beach their boats, the boats are hauled up by a winch, and the winch again is run by petrol. Although we are glad to have the calculations we have got already, the
Chancellor will be wise not to assume that his calculations exactly state the case, because when you talk about £6,000 and £3,000 spread over 2,000 boats of a motor character in Scotland, and 2,000 boats in England and Wales, those of us who know the industry know that the greatest weight of the burden will come on the smallest boats and men in the industry.
There is no need for me to make the speech I had prepared, since the right hon. Gentleman has met us, but I hope he will not take those figures—his preliminary inquiry—as conclusive in the matter, and I hope that when the Report stage conies and he is able to make his own suggestion for cutting the fishermen out from this impost, it will be by some other way than by a complicated system of formulas. The last thing the little fishermen want to have to do is to understand and fill up a large number of complicated forms. Those who are technically responsible for collecting the tax know more about it than does any individual Member of the Committee, but I do not see, myself, why this industry, separate as it is, could not be cut out of the imposition altogether and not have to pay on the petrol consumed in the boats. That was the original assumption in Instruction 171, and I was very much surprised when I saw Instruction 171A, withdrawing the concession announced in the original Budget speech. At any rate, the Committee as a whole, I am sure, whether or not the Members sit for ports where fishermen are voters, will welcome the attitude of mind the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown, and will hope that this case will not be mixed up with other subsequent cases to be argued, but that between now and the Report stage it will be judged upon its merits, and upon the merits of one of the finest breeds of men this old country knows.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Hon. Members representing fishing constituencies, who are supporters of the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, welcome the announcement we have had to-night that he will give this matter further consideration. When the Amendment was made in the Budget speech, that the fishing industry were to be exempt from the Kerosene and Petrol Duty, we made the most of that statement in our con-
stituencies, and it would be very humiliating if we had to tell our people that this concession had been withdrawn, in view of the fact that it was not announced publicly in the House in the same way that the announcement of the withdrawal of kerosene from the duty was made. It was done in a way that did not meet with the approval of our fishermen. Therefore, I think that it is wise policy for the Chancellor to reconsider this matter. I know the great difficulty there is in dealing with these small rebates, for when a Petrol Duty was in operation before, and a rebate was given, the officials had a very difficult time in dealing with the small claims. If it is narrowed down to one industry, there are people connected with the Customs and Excise in the ports who can do this work very well with very little cost; and if, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), the form of claim for rebate is made as simple as possible, I do not anticipate that it will cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer very much. In view of the fact that this promise was made to the industry, it is only right that they should be given the exemption, and I hope that it will not be abused and that claims for exemption will not be made for other industries.
This industry is entirely different from anything else—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That has been argued from the Labour Benches as well as from the Liberal Benches, and I am repeating that argument. I have no doubt that it was that argument that moved the Chancellor to say that he would reconsider it. Those who follow this particular industry will not receive anything in the way of the relief from rates which will be given to the producing industries. Therefore, if this little concession can be given to them, I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it will be welcomed very much.

Mr. KELLY: I understand that there is some doubt as to the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understood him to say that the position he was considering was that of the small boats, and that he was not considering the whole position of the fishing vessels. If he is dealing with the whole of the
fishing vessels, it might make some difference with regard to the view to be taken on the matter.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was not limiting the scope of my remarks; I was dealing with the industry as a whole.

Mr. KELLY: As the opportunity will present itself of raising this question on the Report stage if we are not satisfied, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Has the hon. Member the leave of the Committee to withdraw?

Mr. CRAWFURD: If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, he says in effect that if he agrees to this concession it is on the understanding that other concessions should not be pressed.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No.

Mr. CRAWFURD: It is a totally unwarranted interference with the liberty of the House of Commons for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that because he is prepared to grant one concession he is not going to give completely unbiased consideration to other Amendments.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am the last person to make an unwarranted interference with the liberties of the House of Commons. On the contrary, I have always endeavoured to defer to the wishes of the House and as far as it is possible to invite them to share in the business of shaping our legislation in these matters. The last thing in the world I intended to indicate was that any Member was not within his rights in moving any Amendment, but if a whole series of Amendments is to be moved which would limit the duty, and the Committee pressed me on the whole of these Amendments, then I should be in a very difficult position. My hope is that we shall now be able to pass from this duty without very much difficulty, and then I shall be able to make proposals for relieving the fishermen.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My hon. Friend asked leave to withdraw. If you still allow the Amendment to be withdrawn I only want to say that I realise that the Chancellor has tried to meet us on this point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Leave has been refused to withdraw the Amendment, and the Amendment must be put to the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry this has happened. I do not think the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) with its great fishing industry wants to prevent the Amendment being withdrawn. I think he only wanted to safeguard his position.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understood I had met the point of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd). I made it quite clear that I did not regard any of his freedom to move future amendments as abrogated and in these circumstances perhaps the hon. Member will allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I asked definitely from the Chair whether leave was given to withdraw the Amendment. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) persisted in speaking to the Amendment afterwards and therefore I am afraid that question lapses, and the only thing is for the Amendment to be put from the Chair.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I was on my feet and I tried to address you several times——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry, but the hon. Member must understand that when the question was asked of the Committee whether leave was given to withdraw the Amendment and it was refused by the hon. Member persisting in speaking, that leave was withheld.

Amendment negatived.

Sir VANSITTART BOWATER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, after the word "gallon" to insert the words
on petrol for commercial vehicles used solely by commercial travellers in the exercise of their business or.
If after the consideration the Chancellor has given to the last Amendment I may have an assurance that he will give my Amendment the same consideration I do not think I need go further in the matter. In the circumstances I think I shall have to go on with my argument. My case is that although the fishing industry is carried on round the coasts of these islands commercial travellers go
not only round the coasts but into every village and town, and that it is upon their efforts that the trade of the country is brought to fruition. Though this portion of the duty means very little to the Chancellor it represents a great deal to commercial travellers. They have an allowance of so much per day or per week for travelling expenses when they are travelling about the country in their motor broughams showing their samples, and it is an injustice that they should be imposed upon by this taxation. If the Chancel or of the Exchequer can see his way to take off that which is a small tax to him but which is a very heavy burden to these commercial travellers it will afford them a great amount of relief. Everyone connected with business will realise that this burden on commercial travellers is a real hardship, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to give them some relief.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I am sorry that the Government are not able to accept this Amendment. May I point out that it would be quite impossible to give this concession in respect of vehicles used by commercial travellers without granting the same concession to the users of all other commercial vehicles and that would involve the loss of about two-thirds of the estimated revenue from the duty.

Sir V. BOWATER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. BECKETT: I hope the Committee will not agree to the withdrawal of this Amendment, because it is a very important one. The taxation of cars used by commercial travellers together with the Petrol Duty constitute a very serious handicap to a very poorly paid class of the community. It seems to me perfectly ridiculous for the Financial Secretary to get up and refuse to listen to the plea put forward by the mover of the Amendment on the ground that it would involve the loss of two-thirds of the duty because the same concession would have to be given to all commercial vehicles. There is a strong case for relieving commercial vehicles of all kinds from this kind of taxation. To take money from the motor car industry in this way and then give hack a portion of it in another way seems to me to be a most Gilbertian way of dealing with finance. I do not know if hon. Members realise how much the light
petrol driven car is now used in the selling side of businesses in this country. I do not think that the Amendment ought to be dismissed so lightly, or that the almost ridiculous arguments used against it ought to be accepted by the Committee without consideration. I shall be amazed if hon. Members opposite, many of whom represent big suburban constituencies, where great numbers of truest-blue Conservative supporters are going to be hit very hardly by this tax, let this proposal go through without any protest, and I do hope that the Committee will not allow the Amendment to be turned down in such a very tame and half-hearted manner, even although the hour is getting late.

Mr. RILEY: I desire to add my protest against the withdrawal of this Amendment. A feature of this imposition is the peculiar hardship to the small commercial traveller who uses a car for his daily work. It may be argued that it is not a great hardship to apply a Petrol Duty to commercial vehicles, because the person using such a vehicle for goods can recover the tax by an extra charge in respect of the carriage of the goods, but with the commercial traveller that does not seem likely or possible, and, on the face of it, it would appear that this imposition will be a definite deduction from his ordinary salary or wages, and, therefore, I suggest, a definite hardship. I was interested to hear the Financial Secretary say that the proportion of the Petrol Duty which will apply to commercial as against private vehicles will amount to two-thirds of the whole. There has been some dispute on that point, and we are grateful to the hon. gentleman for his confirmation of that figure. There has also been dispute as to what will be the additional expense to which the users of small cars, such as those of commercial travellers, will be put as the result of this tax. An interesting statement was made earlier by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who read a letter from the owner and user of a one-ton commercial lorry, in which he said that the Petrol Duty will mean an extra expense to him of £52 per annum. The ordinary average car of, say, 12 horse-power, might be regarded as weighing a ton, and probably more, and, if that be agreed, this tax on commercial
travellers is going to be a very great hardship, Which ought to be resisted.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. TOMLINSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, after the word "gallon," to insert the words:
or petrol for tractors used for agricultural purposes and.
Originally, it was the intention of the Chancellor to give this remission. I should like to quote his words:
The tax on light oils used in agricultural tractors, of which there are 23,000, for the purpose of tillage, but only for the purpose of tillage, in all its stages will he remitted.
When he gave the concession on the Kerosene Duty he rather ungraciously withdrew this concession which was made to agriculture. It is possible to make out quite as strong a case for arable farmers as the case that has been made out for the fishing industry. Hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies in whatever part of the Committee they sit, will realise the very serious position of arable farmers. The cost to the Treasury is so small and yet is of such importance to those engaged in this industry that the Chancellor might very reasonably be expected to take this matter into consideration together with the other matter. I hope that he will be willing to give this remission.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly, this is a very small question compared with the general incidence of the tax. I am informed that the tractors in almost every case use kerosene, and it is necessary only to use relatively a very small quantity of petrol for starting up. Once the tractor is started up, properly handled, it gives as satisfactory results on kerosene as on petrol. Tractors which can only run on petrol are altogether exceptional, and the makers of one of the leading kinds of tractors recommend the use of kerosene in preference to petrol. This proposal differs, it will be generally admitted, from the proposal in regard to fishing boats. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will give two reasons why. First, it is undoubtedly true that when I withdrew the Kerosene Duty I told the House there and then that we did not propose any longer to exempt this petrol which is used for starting up agricultural tractors. On the other hand, I did not say anything at that time with
regard to fishermen. That is one reason. The other reason is much more important. No one has obtained more from these proposals than the farmer. He will be entirely free from rates and will be relieved of all future anxiety as to whether the rates go up or down. In view of the fact that the farmers are getting very substantial relief, I certainly think that it is going too far to ask that we should complicate the matter by entering into separate discussions with people who only use a minute quantity of petrol. Nothing could be more calculated to illustrate the difficulty of making the concession which I wish to make with regard to the fishing industry than that it should be made the basis by the hon. Gentleman for his Amendment for giving a concession which would be inconvenient and complicated in practice.

Mr. LAMB: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what he said at the time he introduced the Petrol Duty? May I remind him of another remark which he made? When he was giving relief in respect of the Kerosene Duty, he said, in reply to those who contemplated getting out of the payment of the Petrol Duty by using kerosene, that it would be possible for them to do so.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend will permit me to interrupt him. I was dealing entirely with motor cars. The tractors are different types of engine. They are simpler and, in some ways, cruder types of engine, and the inconveniences which might result from using kerosene—and which I am advised on the highest expert authority would result from using kerosene in motor cars—are such that they do not present themselves at all with regard to agricultural tractors.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member desire to press his Amendment?

Mr. TOMLINSON: Yes.

Amendment negatived.

Commander BELLAIRS rose—

Mr. J. HUDSON: On a point of Order. May I ask whether my Amendment regarding the exemption of dry cleaning will be admitted? I suggest that it is an amendment upon a point which has not yet been discussed in any of the Amend-
ments which have already been before the Committee?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not intended to select it.

Commander BELLAIRS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
(4) There shall be allowed from the duties a rebate at the rate of fourpence per gallon on the delivery of light oils (as defined in the last preceding Sub-section) for use in connection with vehicles propelled by internal-combustion engines and constructed to run exclusively on rails.
The effect of the Amendment will be to exempt patrol engines running on rails. The Chancellor of the Exchequer very early in the Debate said that he had to resist a whole series of Amendments. It is rather ominous that the right hon. Gentleman gave as a reason that it would open the door to fresh Amendments. I am not going to press my Amendment on the ground advanced in the case of the fishing industry, that it was an appeal to his heart. I want to appeal to his head in this matter. The argument that he used in regard to commercial vehicles was that they were subsidised by the use they made of the roads. These petrol engines running on rails assist the roads. They run on private property, and the result is that a good deal of work which would fall on the roads is taken by these rails running over private property, and they receive no assistance under the rate-aiding scheme. The quarries concerned will receive no assistance whatever.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Quarries are mines.

Commander BELLAIRS: The mines will, but the sand-pits will not. The object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to assist the railways. These petrol engines running on rails at these various sand-pits, gravel pits, and so on, feed the railways. In the case of agriculture, they get relief through the horse-power tax, but these petrol engines will get no relief whatsoever. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to make some concession in this matter even now or on Report, because undoubtedly this will be a very severe tax in cases where there are numbers of engines running on rails and using a great deal of petrol. They may have to face unrestricted foreign competition and could
ask for safeguarding on that account. The result of this will be a tax in favour of the foreign competitor, and I hope the Chancellor will make some concession.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Inquiry has been made, and it appears that there are certain cases where there are one or more of these vehicles in use on private lines where there are quarries, etc., and various constructional works, and which might be to some extent affected. I cannot undertake to compensate all those who might be affected by this tax. The Committee has already resisted the requests of others who are affected to a greater extent, or at any rate just as directly as those who are the promoters of such works as I have referred to. Moreover, it will be found that in the vast majority of cases in which these rail-borne, petrol-driven engines are employed, there is also at the same time the rating relief enuring to the constructional enterprises concerned. These sand-pits are included in the general definition of properties which constitute productive industry by means of manual labour. Therefore, this case, again, is quite differentiated from the case of the fishermen.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I regret to hear the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It may be the case that there are only a few companies to whom this proposal would apply, but there are some companies running vehicles on their own rails and never touching the highway. They will receive no countervailing advantages. Many of the small firms will receive little or no benefit through rating relief and this imposition may make the difference between a firm being able to carry on and being driven out of business. I have in mind a company in my own constituency who own five of these motor vehicles. They never leave the steel rails which are the property of the company. They serve building contractors in connection with collieries and it seems to me this penalty ought not to be imposed on them. If the Mover of the Amendment is disposed to carry it to the Division Lobby I shall support him.

Commander BELLAIRS: I may have to raise this matter again on the Report stage, especially in connection with the statement of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer about the relief of rates. I ask leave now to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out from the word "articles" in line 26, to the end of the Sub-section.
The Amendment would leave out the words
for use on a voyage to a place outside the United Kingdom.
and the reason for it is a practical one which ought to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
12 m.
In Germany and America immense strides have been made in the development of the aeroplane for commercial purposes. This is a very critical moment in that connection. The production of aeroplanes is increasing and the reputation of the British machine is being strengthened every day. Now the Government come along with a duty which will seriously handicap the industry. Obviously an aeroplane requires a very large amount of petrol and the duty is going to be a set-back to the development of the industry in this country. In Germany in the last three or four years the use of aeroplanes for commercial purposes has been increasing; in this country progress has been comparatively slow. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that it is unwise at this most critical period of the industry to subject it to such a serious penal tax as this will prove to be. I remember how the motor industry was handicapped at the commencement by restrictions imposed by the State, which resulted in other countries getting ahead of us, and now we are doing the same thing in regard to aeroplanes. Other countries have a considerable advantage in the development of this industry already and now the Government propose to subject it to a heavy tax which is not imposed in Germany or America. To-day we have welcomed on the Terrace of the House the distinguished lady who arrived by aeroplane from America. Such a flight has become possible because of the encouragement given to commercial aviation in the United States. Men and women there are using the aeroplane and have come to regard it as the common thing to go in an aeroplane, just as we do to go in a motor car. This tax will be a serious
set-back to the development of the industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must be interested in the industry, should think well before he proceeds with it. As far as I know they are to get no relief in the matter of rates, and that is an additional reason why this concession should be granted.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are many difficulties which oppose an aeroplane rising in the air, or a wide adoption of that form of locomotion, but the addition of 4d. on the Petrol Duty will not be an appreciable addition to these. Under the present rules, areoplanes which set out for foreign flights will be treated in the same way as ships taking in bunker oil, and it is now sought to extend this privilege to internal flying. That would be entirely out of accord with the whole method of the Customs Duties. There is no ground for such a distinction, and it would be inconsistent with our general practice. Moreover, if the light aeroplane case were granted, I should find myself in a very delicate position after having resisted the proposals just made with regard to fishing and agriculture. It must also be remembered that we have done a great deal to foster civil aviation in this country and have given large subsidies which compare favourably with those given by foreign countries. I think it is very much better that aviation should be treated like all the other activities than that it should be given a small special favour.

Miss WILKINSON: Suppose that an aeroplane is proposing to go for an ordinary joy-ride in the United Kingdom and just goes for 20 miles to Calais and then turns back. Would it have its petrol free?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That would be one of those hard cases which proverbially do not make good law.

Captain GARRO-JONES: With that facility for forgetting which distinguishes him, the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the past, when he was Secretary

of State for Air. His reply shows that he has left out of account all the essential facts upon which the position of civil aviation is based to-day. Everyone who has watched civil aviation for the last year or two has witnessed an intense struggle against the cost per ton-mile. First of all by shillings and then by pence the cost has come down. Even a penny which can be saved by the designers or by the organisers of finance or by the beggars of subsidies has been a welcome relief from the burden which civil aviation has had to bear. The right hon. Gentleman himself said some years ago that civil aviation must fly by itself. Now he is not content with that, and he is putting an additional burden upon it.

His argument as to the subsidy seemed to me to be somewhat illogical. If we are going to place an additional burden on civil aviation now, the longer we shall continue to pay the subsidy, because in every part of the world British aviation companies are continuing a most disheartening struggle against foreign aviation companies which, with the assistance of subsidies and every form of diplomatic aid from their capitals, are keeping British air lines out in every part of the world. It is quite inaccurate to suggest that a mere fourpence per gallon on petrol will not be a serious handicap. Aeroplanes drink up petrol in enormous quantities. A tax on petrol for aeroplanes is an entirely different proposition from a tax on petrol for motorcars. The smallest aeroplane in regular use uses thousands of gallons of petrol per annum. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not consider afresh all the important implications which go to the root of the development of civil aviation at home and abroad. If he will take the advice of the Secretary of State for Air he will find that an established case can be made out for exempting aeroplanes from the duty.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 71.

Division No. 183.]
AYES.
[12.10 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Astor, Viscountess
Boothby, R. J. G.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Balniel, Lord
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Apsley, Lord
Betterton, Henry B.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Blundell, F. N.
Brass, Captain W.


Briscoe, Richard George.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Taints)
Preston, William


Buckingham, Sir H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Burman, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Radford, E. A.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Raine, Sir Walter


Campbell, E. T.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ramsden, E.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hilton, Cecil
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Christie, J. A.
Hope, Capt. A. D. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Salmon, Major I.


Cooper, A. Duff
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cope, Major Sir William
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Couper, J. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandon, Lord


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lamb, J. O.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Dalkeith, Earl of
Looker, Herbert William
Shepperson, E. W.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lumley, L. R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Dixey, A. C.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Smithers, Waldron


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
MacIntyre, Ian
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
McLean, Major A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macmillan, Captain H.
Storry-Deane, R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fielden, E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Margesson, Captain D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fraser, Captain Ian
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gadie, Lieut. Col. Anthony
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Gates, Percy
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Watts, Sir Thomas


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wells, S. R.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, A M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wolmer, Viscount


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nuttall, Ellis
Womersley, W. J.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hamilton, Sir George
Oakley, T.
Wragg, Herbert


Hammersley, S. S.
Penny, Frederick George
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Perring, Sir William George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harrison, G. J. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Mr. Frederick Thompson and Sir


Hartington, Marquess of
Power, Sir John Cecil
Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Riley, Ben


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Batey, Joseph
Hollins, A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Bromfield, William
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Scurr, John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shinwell, E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Strauss, E. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Lee, F.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Purcell, A. A.
Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Fenby.


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. HUDSON: It is extremely unsatisfactory that, in view of the large number of genuine cases to which relief ought to have been given, the Chancellor has been able to give favourable consideration to only one comparatively small item, particularly in view of the fact that I could not get called to move an Amendment in which a very important matter might have been raised in connection with

dry cleaning that involves very heavy expenditure to the industry following upon this tax and also a very high cost to the consumers in the industry. I hope to put down the Amendment again on the Report stage, and before that I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman may reconsider the very special case of dry cleaning.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 71.

Division No. 184.]
AYES.
[12.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nuttall, Ellis


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Oakley, T.


Apsley, Lord
Grotrian, H. Brent
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Astor, Viscountess
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Balniel, Lord
Hamilton, Sir George
Preston, William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hammersley, S. S.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, Sir Walter


Blundell, F. N.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Brass, Captain W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burman, J. B.
Hilton, Cecil
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Campbell, E. T.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nur.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandon, Lord


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Christie, J. A.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shepperson, E. W.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Skelton, A. N.


Cooper, A. Duff
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cope, Major Sir William
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smithers, Waldron


Couper, J. B.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Looker, Herbert William
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Storry-Deans, R.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lumley, L. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Dixey, A. C.
MacIntyre, Ian
Titchfield, Major the Marques of


Eden, Captain Anthony
McLean, Major A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wayland, Sir William A.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells, S. R.


Fermoy, Lord
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Fielden, E. B.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Forrest, W.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fraser, Captain Ian
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon B. M.
Wolmer, Viscount


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Womersley, W. J.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nelson, Sir Frank
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gates, Percy
Neville, Sir Reginald J.



Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bromfield, William
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Barr, J.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Compton, Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Dalton, Hugh
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scurr, John


Day, Harry
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sexton, James


Dunnico, H.
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kennedy, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


Fenby, T. D.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
Lunn, William
Tomlinson, R. P.


Gillett, George M.
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Gosling, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Hirst, G. H.
Purcell, A. A.



Hollins, A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hore-Belltha, Leslie
Riley, Ben
Mr. Benjamin Smith and Mr. Wilfrid Paling.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I think the Committee will agree that we have made substantial progress, having passed a Clause which I believe the Chancellor expected would raise considerable contention, and having got through a rather difficult Debate with good humour, and quite good results from the Government point of view. In the circumstances I hope the Chancellor will agree to our adjourning now.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very much in the hands of the Committee. Progress has been made with some very important matters, but, if hon. Members will look at the Bill, they will see that we have a considerable amount of work to get through. However, I will not press the Committee on this first occasion beyond what hon. Members opposite feel inclined to regard as a proper limit. I would ask, however, that we should have the first three Clauses. Clause 3 is a machinery Clause. If that is understood, I shall be willing that we shall adjourn.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 (Supplementary provisions in connection with the duties on hydrocarbon oils) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and the Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Churchill.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee. [Progress 8th June.]

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS.

Question again proposed,
That the National Debt Commissioners shall, as an when the Treasury request, pay into the Exchequer out of their account of unclaimed dividends, under Part VII of the National Debt Act, 1870, sums not exceeding in the whole one million pounds, and may for that purpose sell any stock standing to the credit of that account.

FINES UNDER ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING ACT.

Resolved,
That all fines imposed in respect of offences under the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, or the regulations made there-under, shall be paid into the Exchequer, and any sums so paid into the Exchequer shall be charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund as if they had been paid into the Exchequer under the Roads Act, 1920."—[Mr. Samuel.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Ormskirk District Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th May and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade
under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Southend-on-Sea and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 21st May and published, he approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Weston-super-Mare Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 21st May and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Hinckley Urban District Council, which was presented on the 22nd May and published, be approved, subject to the following modification:—
In Clause 3, add to the definition of 'the prescribed date' the words 'or such other date, not being later than the 31st day of July, 1928, as may be agreed between the Council and the Company with the approval of the Board of Trade.'

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the United District Gat Company, which was presented on the 6th June and published, he approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Serial Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the St. Ives (Hunts) Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 7th June and published, be approved."—[Mr. Herbert Williams.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven o'clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes before One o'Clock.